Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS (No STANDING ORDERS APPLICABLE),

Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That in the case of the following Bill, referred on the First Reading thereof, no Standing Orders are applicable, namely:—

Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Richmond) (Surrey) Bill.

Bill to be read a Second time To-morrow.

PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDERS BILL,

"to confirm certain Provisional Orders made by the Minister of Transport under the General Pier and Harbour Act, 1861, relating to Gott Bay and Truro," presented by Colonel Ashley; read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 135.]

Oral Answers to Questions — NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.

Sir WALTER de FRECE: 1.
asked the Minister of Pensions if he can give any further details of the war disabilities of the 17,000 persons pensioned by his Department at the present time who are not adults?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTER of PENSIONS (Lieut.-Colonel Stanley): I understand that my hon. Friend has in mind some figures as to the number of pensioners which were given in an answer to the hon. Member
for Pontypool (Mr. Griffiths) on the 27th February. The 17,000 persons referred to are orphan children of deceased officers and men, who are in receipt of pension on their own account.

Oral Answers to Questions — CLUBS, LONDON.

Mr. DAY: 2.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will give the number of registered clubs in England and Wales on the 1st January, 1928; how many new clubs have been granted licences in the Metropolitan police area for the previous 12 months; and the number of these clubs that are within a radius of one mile from Charing Cross?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir William Joynson-Hicks): I must refer the hon. Member to the Annual Volumes of Licensing Statistics which contain all available information as regards registered clubs from year to year, except that I can say that in the year 1927 (the Volume for which is in preparation) 198 clubs were registered as against 156 closed in the Metropolitan Police District, and the figure of registered clubs in England and Wales was 12,480 as on the 1st January, 1927. I cannot answer the first and last parts of the Question.

Mr. DAY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how many of these clubs in the West End were night clubs?

Viscountess ASTOR: Does the Home Secretary not think that there are enough drinking clubs registered already without registering any more?

Mr. SPEAKER: That question does not arise.

Oral Answers to Questions — CHARITIES (REGISTRATION).

Mr. WALTER BAKER: 3.
asked the Home Secretary whether, seeing that the Departmental Committee expressed the view that it was impracticable to enforce the keeping and auditing of the accounts of charities, except as a part of a general system of registration, and that prosecutions can only be based upon an accountant's report, which doubtful charities do not present, he will reconsider the whole question of registration?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave on the 26th April. The Committee, after taking evidence and carefully examining the whole question, reported against registration, and in the circumstances I see no reason for reopening the matter. If the hon. Member will refer to the Report he will find that the Committee recommended a procedure which should be adequate for dealing with doubtful charities.

Mr. BAKER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the system is becoming an intolerable nuisance, and would it not be possible to insist that persons collecting for charities on a commission basis should at least have a pedlar's licence?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I do not think a pedlar's licence would be a right one to use. I agree that very often a nuisance is created by door-to-door collections, but I do not want to issue too many licences, and I think the nuisance will probably die out again.

Oral Answers to Questions — OBJECTIONABLE BOOKS.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 4.
asked the Home Secretary in how many cases (luring the present year he has caused objectionable books and novels on entering the country to be seized and destroyed; how many books and novels have been so dealt with; what proportion were destroyed on political grounds and what proportion on grounds of indecency; and if he is satisfied that his present powers are sufficient to enable him to deal with objectionable books entering the country and to carry out the terms of the International Convention to which His Majesty's Government is a party?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: During the present year in four instances indecent books brought into the country have been dealt with, and the number of such books was nine. No books or novels have been dealt with on political grounds, but some periodicals of a seditious character have been detained. The answer to the last part of the question is in the affirmative.

Mr. SHORT: Does the right hon. Gentleman read these books?

Oral Answers to Questions — HYDE PARK (PROSECUTIONS).

Mr. DAY: 5.
asked the Home Secretary the average number of police, uniformed or otherwise, daily on duty in Hyde Park during the months of March and April, 192B; the number of charges entered at Hyde Park police station during this period for offences reasonably likely to offend against public decency and contrary to the Hyde Park regulations; and the number of these cases in which the prosecutions have failed?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I would refer the hon. Member to the answers which I gave to the hon. Members for the Moseley Division of Birmingham (Mr. Hannon) and the Central Division of Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) on the 10th instant.

Mr. DAY: Has the Home Secretary completed his inquiries with regard to the recent case heard at Marlborough Street, and, if so, what steps have the police taken under his directions?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I have received a private notice question in regard to this case, to which I have prepared a full answer. Under these circumstances, perhaps the hon. Member will defer any further question until then.

Mr. ERNEST BROWN: 6.
asked the Home Secretary how many of the persons referred to in his recent statement, as having been convicted for offences in Hyde Park, were legally represented at their trials; and how many were condemned without legal defence?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I am not in position to give this information as it appears to be nowhere recorded.

Mr. BROWN: Does the Home Secretary think that the conduct of these Courts is satisfactory to the public, seeing that some 615 out of 640 persons, according to his own statement, were convicted. Is there no record as to how many 'of these persons were unable to be legally defended?

Viscountess ASTOR: Is it not true that many women are summoned and convicted as common prostitutes on the evidence only of the police without any complaints by or evidence from the men alleged to have been accosted or annoyed; and does
not this make it very difficult for the police to defend themselves when they make a mistake?

Mr. BROWN: May I have an answer to my question?

Mr. SHINWELL: Can the right hon. Gentleman give the figures as to how many were condemned without legal defence?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: No. There is no record kept. I have made very careful inquiries, and I have seen some of the magistrates myself; and I can repudiate any such suggestion as that which has been made by the hon. Member below the Gangway as to the conduct of these Courts. The conduct of these Courts is admirable from every point of view, and every opportunity is given to a defendant to state his case fully. There are a large number of cases in which the persons charged plead guilty, and they do not want to be legally represented, and do not wish their case to be gone into at length. With regard to the supplementary question put by the Noble Lady the Member for Plymouth (Viscountess Astor), that subject is outside the scope of this question, and I would like to remind the Noble Lady that there is already a very important Committee sitting examining the very question which she has raised.

Mr. BROWN: I made no aspersions on the conduct of the Court, but on the keeping of the records of the Court. The right hon. Gentleman must admit that the records do not show in how many of these there were convictions without the defendant being legally represented. Is there no power to see that these persons are defended?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: It is quite clear that there is no power of that sort. There is no such thing as a public defender. In cases which are not defended, the person is put into the dock and asked: "Are you guilty or not guilty?" and very often these cases are settled in half a minute.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: In how many of these cases did the defendant plead guilty?

Mr. SPEAKER: The bon. Member should give notice of that question.

Oral Answers to Questions — GREYHOUND RACING, WEMBLEY.

Mr. E. BROWN: 7.
asked the Home Secretary whether any police reports have been drawn up as to the effect of greyhound racing at Wembley upon gambling; whether the report has been submitted to him; and if he will give the details of the Report?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: In the course of the Debate on the Second Reading of the Dog Racing Bill, I stated the general effect of all the reports received from the police as to dog racing tracks, including Wembley. I do not think it necessary or desirable to give details from confidential reports concerning particular tracks.

Mr. BROWN: Has the attention of the Home Secretary been called to a statement made by the chairman of the National Savings Committee that he had been informed by the police of the contents of these documents?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: No, Sir; that report has not been brought to my notice. If the hon. Member will refer me to the report, of course I will make inquiries.

Mr. BROWN: I refer the right hon. Gentleman to the "Times" newspaper of the 9th instant.

Oral Answers to Questions — ARTIFICIAL SILK FACTORIES (WORKING CONDITIONS).

Mr. KELLY: 8.
asked the Home Secretary when the Bulmer-Rayon Company, Stowmarket, was given permission to work the two-shift system; when was this factory last inspected; if his attention has been called to the many cases of injury to hands and eyes; and will he consider placing the artificial silk trade in the schedule of diseases in the Workmen's Compensation Act?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The two-shift Order was issued on the 28th January, 1926. The factory was visited on Tuesday last and had been previously inspected on numerous occasions during the last two years. There do not appear to be sufficient grounds for scheduling the conjunctivitis of the eyes under the Workmen's Compensation Act. Even the severer cases of it do not, I am informed, as a rule disable the workman for more than one or two days and where, in ex-
ceptional cases, it has caused more prolonged disablement, it has been due to actual splashes of the acid into the eye, which would constitute an accident within the meaning of the Act. The sores on the band which are sometimes caused by the acid, would appear to be covered by the diseases already scheduled under the Act as dermatitis or ulceration of the skin produced by dust or liquids, hut these sores, if treated promptly, should not incapacitate the workman.

Mr. KELLY: In view of the reply, and also in view of the many cases which have arisen in various parts of the country which have entailed absence from work on many occasions, will the right hon. Gentleman consider having an investigation into the whole position in order that these diseases may be scheduled under the Workmen's Compensation Act?

Viscountess ASTOR: Will the Factory Bill which the right hon. Gentleman is going to introduce in the autumn deal with this matter?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: No. This is a question of the Workmen's Compensation Act and not factory legislation. The hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Kelly) knows that I have gone very fully into this matter, but I should be very glad to discuss it with him, and to consider any proposals which he may make.

Mr. PALING: In view of the growing number of these factories, and the reports about these diseases and their effect upon the workers, is it not possible to have an investigation at an early date in order to adopt preventive measures?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I have asked my medical inspectors to keep their very closest attention on these diseases. New diseases cannot be scheduled immediately; I must be satisfied after my inspectors have gone very fully into the matter.

Oral Answers to Questions — POLICE.

TRAFFIC DUTIES.

Mr. R. MORRISON: 9.
asked the Home Secretary the number of police at present engaged upon traffic duties within the Metropolitan police area as compared with 1920; and whether any proposals are
under consideration to enlarge the Metropolitan police force?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The number of Metropolitan police engaged on traffic duty varies from day to day, but is at present about 1,300. The corresponding figure for May, 1920, was about 780. The question of the strength of the force is constantly before me, but for reasons of economy I cannot press for an increase of strength at present.

LOST PROPERTY OFFICE, LONDON.

Sir NICHOLAS GRATTAN-DOYLE: 13.
asked the Home Secretary whether he will issue instructions that the Lost Property Office in London shall remain open on Saturday afternoons, in view of the convenience which would thereby be afforded to working people whose opportunity of making personal inquiry respecting lost property is often confined to that afternoon of the week?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I regret that I cannot give the instructions suggested by my hon. Friend. To do so would raise difficulties of staffing and would entail considerable expense. I have not received any complaints that Saturday closing gives rise to inconvenience; anyone unable to call at the Lost Property Office during the hours of opening can make application by letter, and every effort will be made to identify his property.

CONTROL.

Sir BASIL PETO: 15.
asked the Home Secretary whether in view of the difficulties caused by divided control of the police in the detection of crime, and the great increase of fatal accidents to the public and motorists, he will take steps to assume the control of all the police throughout the country, particularly with a view to checking the present prevalent dangerous driving on narrow and blind sections of the roads?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: No, Sir. I think that experience has shown that the exigencies of traffic control and of the detection of crime can be fully met without contemplating any radical change such as my hon. Friend suggests.

CHIEF CONSTABLE, ST. HELENS.

Mr. SEXTON (by Private Notice): asked the Home Secretary if he has received the Report of the Commission
of Inquiry in connection with the dispute between the Chief Constable of St. Helens and the local Watch Committee, and what steps, if any, he intends to take thereon?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Yes, Sir, and in communicating the result of the inquiry to the Watch Committee on Tuesday last I made it clear to them that in view of the terms of the Report the Chief Constable, who has been on extended leave of absence, must resume his duties forthwith. I recognise that the Report raises other considerations of great importance, but as it has only been in the hands of the Watch Committee for a few days, I think it better to make no further statement at present.

Mr. SEXTON: May I respectfully submit to the right hon. Gentleman that he will consider the advisability of asking the representatives of the local Watch Committee to come and see him in London and discuss the possibility of a peaceful method of dealing with the situation being [...]ved at?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I have seen the Watch Committee at their request on previous occasions, and, if they make any such request to me again, I shall be only too pleased to see them.

Mr. HAYES: May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman's attention has been drawn to the extraordinary discrepancy in the findings, in which the Commissioners declare that the high state of efficiency of the force has been brought about by the Chief Constable, and yet there is an admission in the Report that no single officer of the force has been granted efficiency pay by the Chief Constable?

Mr. SPEAKER: That is a question which should appear on the Order Paper.

WHIST DRIVES.

Mr. DAY: 10.
asked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been drawn to a decision given by the High Court which makes whist drives for prizes illegal under the Betting Act of 1853; and, in view of the wide-spread demand that whist drives should be made legal, will he consider the introduction of an
amending Act that will have as its object the provision to allow this amusement 10 continue?

Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLE: 12.
asked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to a recent decision that the use of a room for progressive whist and whist knock-out competitions for prizes is illegal and whether he proposes to take steps to secure an amendment of the law whereby these forms of recreation will be legalised?

Mr. R. MORRISON: 14.
asked the Home Secretary whether, in view of the uncertainty caused by a recent High Court decision declaring the use of a room for whist drives for prizes to be illegal, he will consider the introduction of legislation in order to make the position clear?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I have had an opportunity of discussing the recent High Court decision with the Lord Chief Justice, and I understand that the effect of that decision is to reaffirm the interpretation of the law which was laid down some 16 years ago. Any amendment of the general law relating to gaming involves very difficult considerations.

SUNDAY TRADING.

Sir ROBERT THOMAS: 16.
asked the Home Secretary whether, having regard to the fact that some 250,000 shops are open in this country every Sunday and that about 2,000,000 people are involved, is it his intention to introduce within the lifetime of the present Parliament a Bill dealing with Sunday trading?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: For the reasons which I have explained on several previous occasions, the Government do not feel that they are in the position to propose legislation on the subject.

Sir R. THOMAS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the country generally has formed an opinion that he is of a frivolous turn of mind?

EQUAL FRANCHISE BILL.

Sir EDMUND TURTON: 17.
asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that the preparation of the new register of electors involved by the Representation
of the People (Equal Franchise) Bill will increase the registration expenditure of the county and borough councils concerned by approximately 45 per cent. in the first year; and that in November last the County Councils Association unanimously expressed the view that, pending a material improvement in the financial position of the country, there should be some restriction of legislation which imposes upon local authorities duties involving new and substantial local expenditure; and whether, in view of the existing burden on the ratepayers, he is prepared to increase to 75 per cent. the Exchequer share of the cost of the first new register?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I am aware of the facts as stated, but I have no power to increase the Exchequer share of the cost of registration, which was fixed at 50 per cent. so recently as 1918, by the Representation of the People Act.

Sir E. TURTON: In view of the very disappointing answer which my right hon. Friend has given, may I ask him whether he would be prepared to accompany a deputation of the County Councils Association to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in order to get justice on this very important point?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I think it is unusual to ask a Minister to go on a deputation to a colleague, but I shall be very glad to hear what luck my hon. Friend has with the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

COTTON INDUSTRY (WOMEN AND YOUNG PERSONS).

Mr. KELLY: 18.
asked the Home Secretary the reasons given by the Preston Doubling Company and the Belgarth Mills, Limited, for Orders under Section 2 of the Employment of Women, Young Persons, and Children Act, 1920, and the numbers of workers concerned?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: In the first-mentioned case, the object was to coordinate output from the doubling and gassing departments, pending installation of further gassing plant; it was anticipated that eight workers would be employed on the shifts. In the other case, the object was to reduce the proportion of overhead charges by increasing production with a view particularly to meet
foreign competition; the number to be employed on the shifts was expected to vary, the maximum being probably about 70

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION.

ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS (SANITARY ACCOMMODATION).

Mr. MARCH: 21.
asked the President of the Board of Education how many public elementary schools in England and Wales have no other sanitary accommodation than privy middens?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Lord Eustace Percy): I am afraid that the information asked for by the hon. Member is not available.

ATHLETIC TRAINING (TRAVELLING EXPENSES).

Mr. MARCH: 22.
asked the President of the Board of Education on what grounds the Board have refused to approve a proposal of the Landon County Council to spend a sum not exceeding £500 annually in defraying the travelling expenses of necessitous pupils for athletic training outside the ordinary school hours; and whether he is aware that the effect of this prohibition must be to exclude the children of poor parents from the benefit of such training?

Lord E. PERCY: I think the hon. Member is under a misapprehension. The proposal of the London County Council was primarily concerned with expenses of school teams playing matches on "away" grounds, and was quite distinct from the policy, which is being steadily carried on by the London County Council and other local authorities, with the Board's assistance, of developing facilities for whole schools to play organised games regularly. It seems obviously desirable in principle that the expenses of schools teams should be met from school funds, supplemented, where necessary; by money from other private sources, and I hope that, in the future, schools in poor districts will be able increasingly to look to their "old boys" for small contributions for this purpose.

WATER SUPPLY, HEREFORDSHIRE.

Mr. MARCH: 23.
asked the President of the Board of Education how many of the 52 public elementary schools of the county of Hereford reported in 1925 as
having no water supply at all are still without such a supply; what are the names of the public elementary schools in that county still without water; what steps are being taken to make those schools comply with the Board's Regulations in respect of a water supply; and at what date the provision of a water supply to those schools may be expected?

Lord E. PERCY: I have no particulars which would enable me to give a detailed reply to this question, but I should be glad to make inquiries into any specific cases of inadequate water supply which the hon. Member may be able to bring to my notice.

Mr. COVE: Does not the Noble Lord regara it as the duty of his Department to make these inquiries, in order that the schools may be put into a proper sanitary condition in this respect?

Lord E. PERCY: No, Sir; the object of the Black List was to make a survey of the schools where there was the most urgent need for remedying defects, and to concentrate the attention of the local authorities and school managers on that list. Unless we can concentrate attention on that list, we shall not make the progress that we ought to make, and I do not want to divert the local authorities from that object.

Mr. TREVELYAN: Did not Sir George Newman report specifically on a great many counties in relation to the question of water supply, giving details?

Lord E. PERCY: I should require notice of that question.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Does not the Noble Lord think that it is a disgrace that at this time there should be schools in England which have no water supply?

Mr. COVE: Is the Noble Lord aware that the reports of the medical officers of health refer specifically to these cases, and can he not, therefore, get details from the people who made the reports?

Dr. VERNON DAVIES: Is my Noble Friend in constant consultation with the Minister of Health in regard to this matter?

Lord E. PERCY: Yes, Sir.

UNCERTIFICATED HEAD-TEACHERS.

Mr. LUMLEY (for Mr. ROBERT HUDSON): 19.
asked the President of the Board of Education whether the number of uncertificated head-teachers has increased to any considerable extent between 1920 and 1927; and, if so, whether this increase indicates any change in the policy of the Board?

Lord E. PERCY: No, Sir. Recent statements on this subject seem to have been based on a misreading of the published statistics. The number of head-teachers who were not certificated was 620 in 1920 as compared with 668 in 1927, an increase of less than 8 per cent. During the same period there was an increase of 7,002 in the number of certificated assistant teachers and a decrease of 7,064 in the number of uncertificated and supplementary teachers. There has been no change in the Board's policy.

FOREIGN LANGUAGES.

Mr. FENBY (for Mr. HARRIS): 20.
asked the President of the Board of Education if he is satisfied with the provision made in our education system for the teaching of foreign languages; and whether, in order to keep our foreign trade, he will satisfy himself that in all industrial centres there are ample facilities for instruction in French, Spanish, and German, so that our trades will have men and women on their staffs properly trained in foreign languages?

Lord E. PERCY: I think that there is room for improvement in the teaching of modern languages, and I hope to include this subject in the inquiry into education for salesmanship which the Board are about to undertake under the programme of inquiries which I recently outlined in my reply to the Emmott Committee.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING.

DIRECT LABOUR.

Mr. WELLOCK: 26.
asked the Minister of Health the number of houses local authorities have erected by direct labour during each of the last seven years?

The MINISTER of HEALTH (Mr. Chamberlain): As the answer involves a number of figures, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

Particulars as to direct labour schemes in the form desired by the hon. Member are not available, but the following statement gives information as to direct labour schemes approved since 1919.

Statement showing the number of houses included in direct labour schemes of local authorities approved since 1st January, 1919.

Under the Housing, Town Planning, etc., Act, 1919
8,160

Under the Housing, etc., Act, 1923, and the Housing (Financial Provisions) Act, 1924, during the years ended 31st March—

1924 (8 months)
…
…
1,522


1925
…
…
3,344


1926
…
…
4,667


1927
…
…
5,921


1928
…
…
5,948

SLUM CLEARANCE (COMPENSATION).

Sir W. de FRECE: 27.
asked the Minister of Health if he can make any statement as to the intentions of his Department to introduce legislation in favour of the grant of reasonable compensation to owners of habitable house property which may be included in slum-clearance schemes?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: It is the intention of the Government to provide in any

District.
Quality of Brick.
Price per 1,000 on the 1st April,


1925.
1926.
1927.
1928.


Willesden
Fletton
65s. 6d.(average).
65s. 6d. (average)
62s. 9d. to 66s. 6d.
59s.


Willesden
Picked stock used for facing.
145s.
145s.
107s. 6d.
90s.


Newcastle-upon-Tyne
Local Common
55s. 10d.
54s. 2d.
54s.
45s

Willesden prices are "delivered site," while Newcastle-upon-Tyne prices are "at yard."

RENT RESTRICTIONS ACT.

Colonel ENGLAND: 32.
asked the Minister of Health if he can make any statement on the intentions of the Government with regard to the renewal Dr extension of the Rent Restrictions Act?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am not yet in a position to make a statement.

legislation for dealing with slum areas, for amending in certain respects Section 46 of the Housing Act, 1925, but I am not in a position to say when it will be possible to lay the new proposals before the House.

BRICKS (PRICES).

Mr. WELLOCK: 28.
asked the Minister of Health the prices of three standard qualities of house bricks on a given date in April, 1925, 1926, 1927, and 1928, respectively?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: As the answer involves a tabular statement, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. WELLOCK: May I ask if the figures show any marked drop in prices?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes, a considerable drop.

Mr. WELLOCK: At what date?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The latest figures show a very considerable drop.

Following is the answer:

According to returns received by the Inter-Departmental Committee on the Prices of Building Materials, the prices per 1,000 of three standard qualities of bricks on 1st April in each of the years in question were as follow:

EAST DEAL, LINCOLNSHIRE.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: 34.
asked the Minister of Health how many houses were occupied in the parish of East Keal, Lincolnshire, in 1914; how many are occupied at the present time; and how many houses are condemned as unfit for human habitation?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I have addressed an inquiry to the local authority on these points and will inform the hon. Member of the result.

Oral Answers to Questions — PUBLIC HEALTH.

POISONS AND PHARMACY ACTS (INQUIRY).

Mr. ROBERT WILSON: 29.
asked the Minister of Health whether the Committee on the Poisons and Pharmacy Acts have concluded their deliberations; and, if so, will the findings of the Committee be available to Members of this House?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I have been asked to reply to this question. I am informed by the Lord President of the Council that the Committee on the Poisons and Pharmacy Acts has not concluded its deliberations. When the Report of the Committee is received by the Lord President, the question of making it a White Paper will be considered.

LUNACY LAW.

Mr. SNELL: 30.
asked the Minister of Health whether, seeing that two years have elapsed since the Royal Commission on Lunacy and Mental Disorders issued their Report and that the reforms therein suggested are of pressing importance, he proposes to introduce legislation dealing with the question and when such legislation may be expected?

Sir N. GRATTAN - DOYLE: 35.
asked the Minister of Health whether he proposes to introduce legislation upon the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Lunacy and Mental Disorders?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I fully appreciate the desirability of early legislation in pursuance of some, if not all, of the recommendations of the Royal Commission, but, in view of the other legislative commitments of the Government, I regret that I am not in a position to say when it will be practicable to introduce a Bill for this purpose.

Mr. SNELL: Do the recommendations of the Royal Commission receive the attention of the right hon. Gentleman's Department?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes, certainly.

VOLUNTARY HOSPITALS.

Mr. LUNN: 31.
asked the Minister of Health whether the Voluntary Hospitals Commission is still in existence; who is the present chairman; and what were the total grants made to hospitals during 1927 and up to the end of April, 1928?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The Final Report of the Commission, of which the right hon. the Earl of Onslow is Chairman, is in the the printer's hands; and the work of the Commission will be concluded with the issue of the Report. Excluding contributions towards specific grant-aided services, the total Exchequer grants in aid of the general expenses of voluntary hospitals since 1918 have amounted to £500,000; and the distribution of this sum by the Commission was completed on the 31st March, 1924.

Mr. LUNN: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that many voluntary hospitals are in financial difficulties today, and that there are thousands of cases waiting to be treated at such hospitals; and is there not justifiable reason for keeping the Commission in being, so that it can do something to help hospitals which are in difficulties?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am afraid that there have always been cases when voluntary hospitals have been in financial difficulties, hut a very great improvement has taken place in the last few years, and, in the absence of a further contribution from the Exchequer, I do not think it would he of any use to keep the Commission in being.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: In view of the amount of local financial embarrassment, particularly in milling areas, where there is only part-time work, and in view of the fact that the Onslow Committee recommend that certain provision be made for capital expenditure, does not the right hon. Gentleman think that the Government might very well assist the voluntary hospitals, which are doing their best to carry on the good work?

Lieut. - Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: Would it not be of some help if the Minister relieved them of all rates?

Mr. WILLIAMS: They are not a productive industry.

OLD AGE PENSIONS.

Colonel ENGLAND: 33.
asked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been called to the period of waiting entailed in the cases of many applicants for the old age pension at 65 years of age; and whether it is possible, either through notification by approved societies or by some better system of public announcement, to warn all applicants of the need for taking action before they reach the prescribed age?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: If the applicant takes advantage of the opportunity of making his claim well in advance of his 65th birthday, there is in the ordinary case no period of waiting for the receipt of pension. I may add that attention is drawn to the desirability of early application in the posters displayed in post offices, and approved societies are being asked to warn members when they attain the age of 64 years and eight months of the approaching termination of their right to cash benefits, so that they may be induced to make their claims for pension in good time.

Mr. BRIANT: If, as I understand is the case, there are arrears of work in regard to pensions, is it not extremely undesirable just now to discharge ex-service men while such arrears exist, and would it not be better to delay discharging those men until the arrears are dealt with?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am afraid that I did not catch the hon. Member's question.

Mr. BRIANT: Is it not a fact that ex-service men have been recently discharged, or are under immediate notice of discharge, and would it not be better if the discharges were delayed until the arrears of work are dealt with?

Mr. SPEAKER: That is a new point, and it should be put down on the Paper.

Mr. W. BAKER: 42.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether his attention has been called to the resolution passed by the local pension committee of the Bristol City Council, in which it is asked that legislation may be introduced to amend the Old Age Pension Act to provide that uninsured persons shall be entitled to an old age pension on attaining the age of
65 years, subject to the conditions as to means, nationality, and residence; and whether he will make a statement on the subject?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Arthur Michael Samuel): I am informed that the Minister of Health has received a copy of a resolution passed by the Bristol City Council suggesting a reduction from 70 to 65 in the age limit for pensioners under the Old Age Pensions Acts, 1908–1924. As regards the last part of the question I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for East Middlesbrough on 3rd March, 1027.

STONE QUARRYING, WYE VALLEY.

Sir R. THOMAS: 43.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware that a portion of the Wye Valley below Symonds Vat, belonging to the Crown, has been leased to a company for the purpose of quarrying stone; that blasting and stone-crushing go on continuously, Sundays and weekdays; that the scenic beauties of the locality and the fishing in that part of the river are being ruined; and whether, in view of the national value of this place as a beauty spot and tourist resort, he will take steps to cancel the agreement with this company and put a stop to these operations?

Sir LEOLIN FORESTIER-WALKER (Forestry Commissioner): I have been asked to reply. Martin's Pool Quarry referred to has been let for a term expiring in 1945, and it is not proposed to take steps to cancel the tenancy, but the lease provides that the lessees are not to use or allow anything to be done in the working of the quarry which shall, in the opinion of the Forestry Commissioners, interfere with the amenities of the neighbourhood, and every effort has been and will he made to ensure that this provision is complied with. The Department have recently been in communication with the lessees on the matter, and it is understood that heavy blasting has been stopped and smaller charges are now being used. The question of limiting the times of blasting is under discussion. The river is 40 feet below the bottom of the quarry and there is a belt of trees between the river and the quarry, so that very little of the quarrying can be seen
from the river. The quarry is not visible from the Yat Rock or south of the river.

Sir R. THOMAS: Does the hon. Gentleman say that these people are not allowed to work on Sunday?

Sir L. FORESTIER-WALKER: That is one of the questions that are now under discussion.

Sir R. THOMAS: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that it is against the custom and the amenities of the neighbourhood to allow anyone to quarry stone on Sundays, and will he use his influence to prevent this taking place?

BULGARIA (REPARATION PAYMENTS).

Mr. BARR: 36.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer when the last payment was received by Great Britain on account of Bulgarian reparations; what was the amount thereof and what sum is due on the next payment; and whether His Majesty's Government, in view of the great financial strain which Bulgaria is undergoing in consequence of the earthquakes, will consider the desirability of returning these payments, or making some remission thereof, to the Bulgarian Government?

Mr. SAMUEL: Bulgarian Reparation payments are made to the Inter-Allied Commission at Sofia, and not to individual Governments. The last payment made was a sum of five million gold francs (200,000) on 1st April, 1028, and the next instalment due is a further five million gold francs on 1st October, 1928. As regards the remainder of the Question I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for the Brightside Division (Mr. Ponsonby) yesterday.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: In considering any remission of Bulgaria's debt will the hon. Gentleman consider also the advisability of setting free the prisoners who are interned and giving them an amnesty for their past so-called offences?

Mr. MACKINDER: How many Powers have agreed to do as was suggested in the answer given yesterday?

Mr. SAMUEL: I cannot give the last hon. Gentleman who spoke a definite
answer, but I can say that under Article 122 of the Treaty of Neuilly at this moment the Inter-Allied Commission is considering the question.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the present Government of Bulgaria is in effect a Fascist Government?

SUPER-TAX AND ESTATE DUTIES.

Mr. COUPER: 37.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, as the result of the investigations of the Cabinet Committee appointed by him last year to inquire into the possible evasion of Supertax, and Estate Duties, he has taken any administrative action to ensure that there is no legal avoidance of such duties; and, if so, what amount it is estimated will be saved to the Treasury in the current financial year?

Mr. SAMUEL: I would remind my hon. Friend that it is in the nature of the case that legal avoidance cannot be dealt with by administrative action. The legislation included in fast year's Finance Act, as the result of the investigations of the Cabinet Committee to which my hon. Friend refers, dealt with legal avoidance of Super-tax. It came into force at the commencement of the current year. Its effect will, no doubt, be both direct and indirect. I have no means of estimating what difference it will make to the yield of the tax. The question of the avoidance of Estate Duty i5 being carefully watched.

WAR INVENTION AWARD (INCOME TAX).

Lieut.-Colonel JAMES: 38.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that the Royal Commission on Awards to Inventors awarded a sum of £8,000 to Mr. Marten Hale for his inventions; that this sum was paid out to him less some £1,600 alleged to represent Income Tax due on the award; and whether he will give instructions to the Income Tax authorities who acted thus that the money so deducted is to be repaid to Mr. Marten Hale?

Mr. SAMUEL: The reply to the first part of my hon. and gallant Friend's question is in the affirmative. The claim of the Crown to Income Tax in similar
circumstances was recently approved by the House of Lords in the case of Constantinesco v. Rex, and in view of that decision no claim to repayment in the present case can be entertained.

Lieut.-Colonel JAMES: Is the lion Gentleman aware that eminent counsel have declared that the Constantinesco case is in no way comparable, and is he also aware that Mr. Hale wrote to the Treasury on 29th December last and that the first reply he got was to-day?

Mr. SAMUEL: I did not know that was the case. I will look into it.

Mr. HARDIE: In the case of a patent which has not been used, the money is looked upon as an ordinary sale. Is that the position of the Government?

Mr. SAMUEL: I could not give a decision off-hand. I should have to have notice.

GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS (EX-SERVICE MEN).

Mr. SMEDLEY CROOKE: 39.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury the number of disabled ex-service men employed in Government Departments in London as office keepers, store keepers, and messengers who were over 65 years of age at the 31st of March last?

Mr. SAMUEL: The information immediately available does not enable me to say how many of the 45,985 disabled ex-service men employed by Government Departments answer to the description in my hon. Friend's question, but the number must be very small indeed.

Sir FRANK SANDERSON: 41.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury if, in view of the large number of ex-service men in the Civil Service who are being passed on to the books of the Joint Substitution Board, he will consider the retention of such ex-service men in substitution for temporary women clerks at present engaged in the Civil Service?

Mr. SAMUEL: The work on which the remaining temporary women clerks in the Civil Service are employed is of the kind accepted by the Southborough Committee as peculiarly appropriate to, or normally performed by women. There is therefore no scope for the further substitution which the hon. Member suggests.

OTTOMAN DEBT.

Major PRICE: 40.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether the International Committee considering the matter of the Turkish Unified 4 per cent. Stock have come to a decision; and, if not, when a decision may be expected?

Mr. SAMUEL: I understand that the negotiations between the Turkish Government and the representatives of the bondholders in regard to the Turkish share of the Ottoman Debt under the Treaty of Lausanne are still continuing and I am unable to say when they will be concluded.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE.

EXPORTATION OF ANIMALS (QUARANTINE CONDITIONS).

Mr. A. M. WILLIAMS: 44.
asked the Minister of Agriculture how many animals have entered the London Quarantine Station for export to Australia?

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Guinness): No animals have entered the station for export to Australia.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Are animals allowed to enter Australia?

Mr. GUINNESS: The Australian Government have not yet decided on the conditions of quarantine subject to which they may be prepared to allow importation.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Is the right hon. Gentleman hopeful that they will accede to our request?

Mr. GUINNESS: We are in communication with them and I hope we may get a satisfactory settlement.

HOUSE OF LORDS.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 45.
asked the Prime Minister if it is his intention to introduce any legislation for the reform of the House of Lords during the lifetime of the present Parliament?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Baldwin): I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the answer which I gave on 3rd April in reply to a similar question by the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Malone).

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Does than answer mean that all idea of legislation for the reform of the Upper Chamber has been abandoned.

The PRIME MINISTER: It means exactly what was said in the answer given on 3rd April.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: How is it that the Prime Minister is able to refer to the words of the late Lord Oxford that it will brook no delay and vet proposes to do nothing in this Parliament?

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT.

Moron DRIVERS' LICENCES.

Mr. W. BAKER: 47.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he is contemplating a revision of the present method of issuing motor-driving licences; and, if so, whether he will consider the advisability of insisting upon adequate identification of the applicant?

The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Colonel Ashley): No alteration in the method of issuing motor-driving licences is under consideration pending the introduction of the Road Traffic Bill.

LIVERPOOL-HULL ROAD (BOOTHFERRY BRIDGE).

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 48.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he has now received the report of his chief road engineer, who recently examined the existing state of affairs on the roads leading from the new Booth-ferry Bridge to join up with the Liverpool-Hull trunk road if so, what is the nature of this report; and what action he is taking on it?

Colonel ASHLEY: The reports I have received go to show that certain improvements are desirable and that there is need for concerted action by the local authorities concerned for the purpose of forming satisfactory bridge-approaches, towards the cost of which I am prepared to give assistance from the Road Fund, as I stated in reply to the hon. and gallant Member's question on the 8th instant.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: If the right hon. Gentleman cannot promise that no work will be undertaken, will he
make provision for suitable ambulance arrangements on the road, as the police themselves anticipate heavy accidents?

TRAMWAY UNDERTAKINGS (RATE AID).

Mr. KELLY: 49.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he has a return showing the number of tramway undertakings in Great Britain which receive assistance from the rates?

Colonel ASHLEY: Particulars of the tramway undertakings which received assistance from local rates during the year ended 31st March, 1927, the latest year for which information is available, are contained in the published Returns of Street and Road Tramways for that year.

ROYAL AIR FORCE (ACCIDENT).

Sir R. THOMAS: 50.
asked the Secretary of State for Air what were the circumstances 'under which Lieutenant D. F. C. Scott, of the Essex Regiment, met his death whether officers of the Regular Army can be compelled to fly what Regulation provides that such an order can be issued to them: and how many., have lost their lives in flying?

The SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Sir Samuel Hoare): As regards the first part of the question, Lieutenant Scott was flying as a passenger in an Air Force machine in accordance with a scheme under which Army officers are attached for short periods to the Air Force for the purpose of gaining air experience. The answer to the second part of the question is in the affirmative, and to the third part, that the Regulation is contained in Army Order 304 of 1924, which provides that officers and other ranks of the Army may be ordered to go up in the air. As regards the last part of the question, four Army officers attached to the Royal Air Force have been killed in flying accidents since 1st January, 1920; in addition, three British officers serving with the Iraq Levies and one Indian Army officer have been killed while attached to the Royal Air Force.

Sir R. THOMAS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the mother of Lieutenant Scott wrote to the Minister to ask him when it was made compulsory for officers of the Army to take a course of instruction of observation from the air
and the Ministry have not had the courtesy to answer the mother of this unfortunate gallant gentleman?

Sir S. HOARE: I am very sorry if no answer has been sent to the mother. It may, of course, be due to the fact that the greater part of the question really concerns the War Office rather than the Air Ministry, but I will certainly look into the matter at once and see that an answer is sent, either by my Department or by the War Office.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Will the right hon. Gentleman represent to the Secretary of State for War that it is inadvisable to make flying compulsory for Army officers and that it would be more proper to appeal for volunteers?

Sir ARTHUR SHIRLEY BENN: Is it the case that young officers have to go up only with pilots who have passed all their examinations and are duly qualified?

Sir S. HOARE: Certainly, they will go up only with duly qualified pilots. I will convey the hon. Member's observations to my right hon. Friend, but I think he will see how necessary it is that Army officers should familiarise themselves with flying and Air Force questions.

Mr. HARDIE: Are we to understand from the answer that has been given that if any individual in the Army has an objection to going up in the air, the fact is taken into consideration?

Mr. B. SMITH: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that action was taken in the Civil Flying Corps at Waddon and that the compulsory forcing of men to go up in the air has been withdrawn, and does he not think that it would be a good thing if the Air Force adopted this course also?

RATING RELIEF.

Mr. WELLOCK: 51.
asked the President of the Board of Trade the amount of relief in rates it is expected will be given to the chain-making trade in Cradley and district in October, 1929, under the Budget proposals?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Herbert Williams): I would refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon.
Member for Rochdale (Mr. Kelly) on the 14th May, a copy of which I am sending him.

Mr. FENBY (for Mr. HARRIS): 25.
asked the Minister of Health what percentage of the rates in the administrative county of London it is estimated is levied on productive industry?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Such information as is available will be found set out separately for London in Part I of the published statement of "Rates levied by Local Authorities," copies of which are available in the Vote Office.

RIVER THAMES (FOREIGN VESSELS).

Sir PARK GOFF: 52.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware of accidents having occurred on the River Thames owing to foreign vessels navigating the river without engaging the services of a Thames pilot, tugmaster, or waterman; and whether he will inquire into the system under which this is permitted?

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: While I am aware that accidents have occurred on the River Thames to vessels navigating without the services of a Thames pilot, tugmaster or waterman, I have no information to show whether any of these accidents could have been avoided had the services of the persons referred to been employed. As regards the latter part of the question, I would refer my hon. Friend to the answers given to the hon. Member for Gravesend (Mr. Albeit') on the 10th and 29th November and the 20th December last, of which I am sending him copies.

Sir P. GOFF: Is my hon. Friend aware that the by-laws of the Humber and the Mersey give ample protection to the local navigators of those estuaries, and also is, he aware that 75 per cent. of the accidents between the Pool of London and Putney Bridge are due to foreign vessels without pilots?

Mr. WILLIAMS: I was not aware of those facts, but I will look into that question.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Will the hon. Gentleman also look into the question of making the Thames.
Estuary of the Port of London a compulsory pilotage district?

Mr. WILLIAMS: That question does not arise here, but we are in communication with the Port of London Authority on the whole question.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Will the hon. Gentleman look into the matter and let me know?

Mr. WILLIAMS: Yes.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND.

FISHERY CRUISERS' PATROL.

Mr. HARDIE: 54.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether there is any fishery patrol by Government ships among the islands of Scotland; and, if so, how many ships and how often the patrol completes its area?

The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Sir John Gilmour): A constant patrol of the coasts of Scotland including the islands is maintained by seven fishery cruisers belonging to the Fishery Board for Scotland and one naval vessel. The frequency of the patrol varies in different sections of the coast according to the importance and the nature of the fishings and the circumstances. No fixed time table or schedule is followed in the patrol. The movements of the vessels are determined by the conditions prevailing from time to time.

COMMUNICATIONS (ISLANDS AND MAINLAND).

Mr. HARDIE: 55.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether the question of transport between the islands and the mainland of Scotland being taken over by the Government has been considered by the Government?

Sir J. GILMOUR: Yes, Sir,

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL INDUSTRY.

OIL EXTRACTION (BERGIUS PROCESS).

Mr. WHITELEY: 59.
asked the Secretary for Mines the date on which experiments first began in this country on the Bergius process and at how many places; and what amount of money the Government have spent on these experiments?

The SECRETARY for MINES (Commodore Douglas King): Experiments on a laboratory scale were carried out at the Fuel Research Station, Greenwich, from 1923 to 1926, and since that year on a small technical scale. The cost to date is approximately £10,000. Special experiments were carried out for the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research by Dr. Bergius in Germany from February, 1926 to April, 1927. The cost of these experiments was £15,533. Experiments on a small scale have also been carried out at Birmingham University. I understand that the subject is being studied exhaustively by at least one commercial undertaking.

WAGES.

Mr. BATEY: 60.
asked the Secretary for Mines the daily wage paid for day wage workers in the Ruhr coal mines in Germany, and the subsistence daily wage paid for day wage workers in the coal mines of Durham County?

Commodore KING: The present average earnings of the lowest paid group of adult day wage men below ground in the Ruhr coal mines are approximately 6s. 9d. per day, including the family allowance and payment for such overtime as may be worked, but excluding the value of allowances in kind. The subsistence wage in Durham is 6s. 6A. per day, exclusive of the value of allowances in kind which are roughly 1s. per shift higher in Durham than in the Ruhr.

Mr. BATEY: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman satisfied that the wage given of 6s. 9d. is the correct wage Was not the wage for the same class of labour prior to the 8 per cent, increase, 7s. 10d. per shift?

Commodore KING: No, Sir. I am perfectly confident that the figures I am giving the hon. Member are correct; otherwise, I would not give them,

Major-General Sir ROBERT HUTCHISON: Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman say what is the difference in the cost of living in the Ruhr and Durham?

Commodore KING: No, Sir, I cannot give that information, without notice.

Mr. SHINWELL: Do not these figures reveal that the wages in the Ruhr for this category are higher than in the case of the Durham miners.

Commodore KING: No, if the hon. Gentleman will read my reply, he will see that the reverse is the case.

Mr. WHITELEY: Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman give us some idea of the family allowances made to the miners in the Ruhr?

Commodore KING: Not without notice. I may inform the House that the only information I have is as to the average earnings. I have not the details as to how these average earnings are worked out.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that the Durham miner is working one hour a day more than the Ruhr miner?

Mr. WELLOCK: Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman say what is included under "allowances"?

Commodore KING: If the hon. Member will put down a question, I will give him all the details that I have.

Mr. DAY: Can the hon. Gentleman say how many hours a day the Ruhr miners work?

Commodore KING: I said that in reply to a question yesterday or the day before.

MARKETING SCHEMES.

Major PRICE: 61.
asked the Secretary for Mines whether, in the case of any new schemes for marketing of coal submitted to him recently, he has authorised the issue to coal consumers of inquiries as to the monthly tonnage purchased?

Commodore KING: I assume that my hon. and gallant Friend is referring to the issue to coal consumers of a circular by an individual trading as the Midland Joint Coal Board requesting particulars of the monthly tonnage of coal purchased. The concern in question has no official status of any sort and is not connected with my Department nor with any other Government Department; nor, I am informed, with the Midland marketing scheme. I have not authorised the issue of any inquiries to consumers in relation to coal marketing schemes.

Mr. PALING: Does the hon. and gallant Gentleman contemplate taking any steps, and does he not think that regulation of output and restriction of output have sent up the cost of coal to the consumer?

Commodore KING: That matter does not arise out of the question.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT.

INDUSTRIAL TRANSFERENCE BOARD (REPORT).

Mr. R. RICHARDSON: 63.
asked the Minister of Labour whether the Report of the Industrial Transference Board will be submited to Members of this House before the Whitsuntide Recess?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. Betterton): No, Sir, I do not anticipate that the Report of the Board will be in the hands of the Government until after the Whitsuntide Recess.

COURTS OF REFEREES.

Mr. SMEDLEY CROOKE: 64.
asked the Minister of Labour if he will consider the advisability of arranging for courts of referees, in connection with local employment committees, to function in the same districts as the rota committees were accustomed to; if he will sanction that a representative of the British Legion shall be a member of the courts of referees; and if he will appoint a deputy-chairman, in addition, on the courts of referees, where necessary, to meet the pressure of extra work?

Mr. BETTERTON: Courts of referees will sit at any place at which there are a sufficient number of cases, namely, in general, 10 or more. Each court wily have at least one deputy-chairman. Under the statutory provisions governing the constitution of the courts the British Legion cannot have direct representation, but members of the Legion may, of course, be appointed on the panel of representatives of employers or of workers, as the case may be.

CHINA (DR. WANG CHUNG-HUI).

Mr. L'ESTRANGE MALONE: 70.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he or his Department have had any conversations with Dr. Wang Chung-hui since his arrival in this country; and whether any statement can be made regarding the nature of these conversations?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Godfrey Locker - Lampson): My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary received a call from Dr. Wang Chung-hui on the 14th of May and had a general conversation with him regarding the situation in China and Sino-British relations.

Mr. MALONE: Does this gentleman represent any Government in China, or what is his position?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: No, he did not come officially to represent anybody. As a matter of fact he was the Chinese representative on the Permanent Court of International Justice.

ROYAL NAVY (GENERAL MESSING).

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: 72.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty the principle on which a naval general mess is run; whether the general mess paymaster is provided with a fixed money allowance for use per day; and, if so, whether this allowance is the same in all parts of the world?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Lieut.-Colonel Headlam): Under the system of general messing the Admiralty provides a full day's messing of a reasonable and sufficient standard. There is no money allowance. The current rate of victualling allowance, which is the equivalent of the standard ration and the messing allowance, forms no part of the new system of general messing. It follows, therefore, that the paymaster is not provided with a fixed money allowance for daily use; he obtains and issues what food is necessary to provide the recognised standard of messing, and the Admiralty bears the cost. The latter is a fluctuating figure depending upon prices and other conditions, and it varies in different parts of the world and as between seagoing ships and shore establishments.

GENERAL STRIKE AND COAL DISPUTE (PRISONERS).

Mr. THURTLE (for Mr. LANSBURY): asked the Home Secretary how many persons are at present detained in
prison convicted of offences committed during the general strike or during the miners' stoppage; the length of sentence each prisoner has yet to serve; the names of the prisoners and the prisons in which they are imprisoned; and whether he will consider the advisability of reviewing these sentences with a view to recommending His Majesty to exercise his prerogative of mercy in these cases?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Eleven; namely, 10 in Maidstone, whose earliest dates for release upon licence are July, 1929, April, 1930, January, 1931, and July, 1932, and one in Portland Borstal Institution, the date of whose release upon licence depends upon his general conduct and progress in the institution. It would not be right to give all the names. I regret that I could not consistently with my public duty advise interference with any of the sentences passed by the Courts in these cases.

Mr. SHINWELL: Having regard to the desire of the Government for peace in industry, would it not be advisable to review these sentences?

Mr. THURTLE: Does not the Home Secretary think that now that the coal dispute has become a memory it is time for reconsideration of these cases and the exercise of clemency?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The hon. Gentleman must realise that these were not ordinary cases connected with a trade dispute. Most of these men were concerned in attempts to wreck trains, which might have involved the loss of life and injury to limb. It is a much more serious thing than the ordinary interference with a trade dispute.

Mr. HARDIE: In view of the fact that the Home Secretary allowed people in high places to get off, although they had broken the Regulations, will he not deal sympathetically with these cases?

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Is it not possible for the Home Secretary to reconsider the whole matter? He is up against the miners in Northumberland. There was no loss of life, and a number of these men have as many as five dependants.

HON. MEMBERS: Speech!

BRITISH ARMY (TEMPORARY OFFICERS).

Mr. FENBY (for Mr. HARRIS): 65.
asked the Secretary of State for War how many temporary officers are still holding active appointments in the Army; and how many were holding similar positions in May, 1926?

The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Sir Laming Worthington-Evans): On 1st May, 1928, there were 100 officers not holding permanent regular commissions serving with the Regular Army compared with approximately 150 on 1st May, 1926. Of the 100, TO are medical and dental officers filling vacancies on the establishment in the absence of fully qualified candidates for permanent commissions.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDIA.

DISTURBANCES, CALCUTTA.

Mr. THURTLE (for Mr. LANSBURY): 66.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been called to the report of the district Magistrate of Calcutta that on 28th March, during the occasion of disturbances in connection with a labour dispute, the officer in charge of armed forces engaged in restoring peace ordered his men to fire on selected persons in the crowd; that no warning was given before firing and no order was issued that the men should fire low; that the two men alleged to have been shot down as selected persons were not stone throwing but were actually behind those who were attacking the police; and whether, in view of these charges, he will order a full public inquiry into all the circumstances connected with the disturbance, and especially into the charges made by the district Magistrate against the British officer in charge of the soldiers and police?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Earl Winterton): The judicial inquiry into a complaint brought against certain Europeans must be distinguished from the Departmental Inquiry which was also conducted by the District Magistrate. In the course of passing judicial orders on the complaint (which he dismissed as un-
founded) the Magistrate is understood to have made certain obiter dicta, but his considered views on the whole circumstances of the case and the conduct of the police officers concerned are contained in the Report on the Departmental Inquiry; an advance copy of this Report has only just reached the local government, and until it has been received and considered it is not possible to form any views as to any action that might be required. No soldiers were employed in putting down the disturbance; the Eastern Frontier Rifles are military police.

GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS (ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION BOARD).

Mr. THURTLE (for Mr. LANSBURY): 67.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether the Government of India has taken, or proposes to take, any steps to set up an independent tribunal to act as a board of arbitration and conciliation between Government employés and Government Departments employing such persons?

Earl WINTERTON: The Government of India have had the whole question of legislation in regard to industrial disputes under consideration and hope to introduce a Bill during the next Session of the Indian Legislature. My Noble Friend has not yet received from the Government of India the detailed proposals which they will place before the Legislature but he assumes that the Bill will deal with public utility companies. I may add that I have received informally information from an authoritative source that considerable progress is being made on the railways for dealing with matters in dispute between the management and the workers, which aims, generally speaking, at the formation of committees of representatives of the men and of the management for the periodical discussion of matters relating to conditions of work and welfare. Owing to the varying conditions in different parts of India no uniform organisation has been found possible and methods suited to local circumstances and tradition are being gradually evolved. My Noble Friend, however, has not yet received an official report on the system.

Oral Answers to Questions — LEAGUE OF NATIONS.

BRITISH CONTRIBUTION.

Sir F. SANDERSON (for Colonel WOODCOCK): 68.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the amount to be paid by the British Government to the League of Nations for the year 1929; and what were the corresponding amounts for the five previous years?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: As the answer contains a number of figures in tabular form, I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

The amount to be paid by the British Government in respect of the year 1929 will be fixed at the Annual Assembly in September next. The estimated contribution to the League of Nations for 1928 is £65,300. The actual payments for the preceding five years were as follow:



£


1923–24
…
…
…
71,604


1924–25
…
…
…
59,322


1925–26
…
…
…
61,360


1926–27
…
…
…
66,000


1927–28
…
…
…
51,829

In addition, His Majesty's Government has made the following contributions to the funds of the International Labour Organisation:



£


1923–24
…
…
…
33,880


1924–25
…
…
…
29,103


1925–26
…
…
…
30,000


1926–27
…
…
…
22,388


1927–28
…
…
…
30,578

The estimated contribution by His Majesty's Government to the International Labour Organisation for 1928 is £34,000.

EXPEXDITURE.

Sir F. SANDERSON (for Colonel WOODCOCK): 69.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the total amount expended by the league of Nations during the year 1927; and what are the estimated expenses for the year 1928?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: The audited accounts for 1927 are not yet available. The estimated expenditure for 1928 amounts to 25,333,817 gold francs.

MISS SAVIDGE (POLICE INTERVIEW).

Mr. JOHNSTON (by Private Notice): asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that on Tuesday, the 15th May, at about 1.50 p.m. two police officers called at the place of business of Miss Savidge, and without affording her any opportunity of communicating with her parents or legal advisers—and expressly, forbidding her to communicate with anyone—conveyed her by motor car to Scotland Yard, and that there she was questioned by two police officers for a period exceeding five hours; and whether such action was authorised by the right hon. Gentleman in connection with his Inquiry into the Sir Leo Money case?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Upon an examination of all the material in my possession bearing upon the Sir Leo Money case I came quite definitely to the conclusion that so far as regards the conduct of the two police officers concerned in that case the only question which arises is whether or not they were guilty of wilfully giving false evidence. Having come to that conclusion, I at once referred the whole matter to the Director of Public Prosecutions for immediate and full investigation. I must make it clear to the House that in such matters, a case having been placed in his hands for investigation, the Director occupies an entirely independent position, and, pending the issue of his investigations, I should not think it right in the ordinary course to inquire into any action taken by the police in pursuance of his instructions. If I were to depart from this attitude there would be a very grave risk of impeding the course of justice.
In view, however, of the hon. Member's question and of the public interest that has been aroused, I have asked the Director to let me know for the information of the House what action he has-taken. He tells me that in strict conformity with the normal course of procedure in any case in which criminal proceedings may be contemplated he took steps with a view to obtaining statements from all those persons whose evidence would be essential in the event of proceedings for perjury being instituted against the police officers. The statement taken from Miss Savidge, who is, of course, concerned in no other capacity
than as a possible witness for the prosocution, was taken in the ordinary course as a necessary step towards the thorough investigation which is required in the interests of justice, and I feel sure that every hon. Member of this House who has had experience of such matters will realise that until I get the Report of the Director of Public Prosecutions it will be impossible for me to interfere. I have asked the Director to expedite the matter.

Mr. JOHNSTON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this young woman was refused permission to go home to change her coat? Is he aware that she was repeatedly warned not to say a word to anybody about having been to Scotland Yard or having made a statement, and is he aware of the third degree methods and demonstrations at Scotland Yard in the absence of Miss Wiles, the woman police officer, who was dismissed from the room at the time that these third degree methods were being carried out?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I have just had telephoned a further message from the Director of Public Prosecutions:
Miss Savidge was seen by Inspector Collins at 2 p.m., after she had had her lunch. She was taken in a car by a woman inspector to New Scotland Yard. She arrived at 3 p.m. She was given tea. Her mother was telephoned to and told that she was not to be anxious. Inspector Collins returned her to her mother's house at 8 p.m.—

HON. MEMBERS: "Shame!"
and she made no complaint at the time.
[Interruption.] I am giving the House all the information I have. At the risk of not making too long an answer, may I explain the difficulties of my position. I am the executive officer of the Government, and I have a case which may probably involve proceedings for perjury against two police officers. The Director of Public Prosecutions works, not under me, but under the supervision of the Attorney-General. I have no control over him, and it will be quite impossible and would be very wrong, for me to give him any directions whatever. I have asked him to give me the fullest information, and I have read out the last statement I have had. I hope to get his report very early next week. It might quite likely involve a
prosecution for perjury, in which case Miss Savidge would be a witness for the prosecution and, under the circumstances, I hope the hon. Member will not press me for any further information. If he does, I shall conceive it my duty to ask any questions of the Director of Public Prosecutions and make the fullest report I can to the House.

Mr. JOHNSTON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that so far from this young woman having made no complaint she fainted when she got home? There is medical testimony to that effect. Is he further aware that no telephone message was sent to the girl's mother, unless through a sub-police station, until after 6 o'clock at night?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I am not aware of that; otherwise, I should have told the House. I am not aware that the young lady fainted when she got home or anything of the kind. I have given all the information I have got to the House. I sent to the Director of Public Prosecutions, which is a very unusual course for the Secretary of State to take, but in order that there should be no mistake I sent for him to my office this morning, and I got the information which I have given to the House in my original answer, and I have just read to the House the further information that has been handed to me at the moment. That is all I know at the moment.

Mr. RAMSAY MacDONALD: Might we come back to the simple proposition. Does the Home Secretary think that this method of getting evidence, this method, of handling witnesses, this method of interfering with the liberties of His Majesty's lieges, is a step for which he has no responsibility, whether it is done by the Director of Public Prosecutions or by anybody else?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: If I may say so with great respect, I think the right hon. Gentleman is justified in asking that question. I do realise that, if the police, even under the instruction of the Director of Public Prosecutions, have acted wrongly towards this lady, I am ultimately responsible, and I shall, and will, make the very fullest inquiry into it. At the same time, I am very anxious not to do anything which will prejudice the independent advice which
we must get from the Director of Public Prosecutions. He is an independent judicial officer, and, I want to do nothing to prevent him giving me a perfectly clear and unfettered opinion on the main question of the guilt or innocence of the two original police officers concerned. I will undertake to make the fullest possible inquiry into the allegations, some of which have only been made across the Floor of the House to me at this moment. Until this moment, I knew nothing other than the allegations contained in the hon. Member's question. Further allegations have now been made, and I will make the fullest possible inquiry into them.

Mr. JOHNSTON: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the right hon. Gentleman's answer, I beg leave to move the Adjournment of the House in order to call attention to a definite matter of urgent public importance.

Mr. SPEAKER: There are some other questions yet.

Mr. HARDIE: May I ask on what grounds anyone can be arrested and detained without warrant in this country?

Mr. MORRIS: May I ask whether this young lady was taken by the police against her will from her place of business to Scotland Yard, and, if so, under what authority she was so taken?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The only information r have is that nothing of the kind has happened; that they asked whether she would come and make a statement, and that she did come and make that statement, and that she was taken home after the statement had been made. There was no suggestion of a warrant or anything of the kind. She was a witness.

Mr. HAYES: In view of the fact that, whatever action is taken by the police, it was taken on the instruction of the Director of Public Prosecutions, and in view of the serious character of the allegations made and in the interests of both parties in subsequent proceedings which may be taken, is it not advisable to remove the prosecution entirely out of the hands of the Director of Public Prosecutions?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Up to the present moment I see no reason what-
ever for doing that. The Director of Public Prosecutions is an officer of very great experience, and, as I have said already, he works under the supervision of the Attorney-General. I have no power and no right in any way to take cases out of his hands when I have once handed them over to him. My duty then is finished.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Will the right hon. Gentleman make it clear that it is not legal to take anybody from his or her home who may be a competent witness in a case and subject him or her to cross-examination and deny that person access to his legal adviser?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I entirely agree that no person is bound to go at the request of the police to Scotland Yard, and certainly that no person can he asked to go there without their legal adviser going with them. It would be quite improper.

Later—

Mr. JOHNSTON: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely:
The circumstances in which the Metropolitan Police conveyed a young woman, Miss Savidge, to Scotland Yard, and, without giving her the opportunity to communicate with her friends or legal adviser, subjected her to close and persistent examination regarding a case already tried and dealt with in Court.

The pleasure of the Rouse having been signified, the Motion stood over, under Standing Order No. 10, until half-past Seven o'clock this evening.

FOOD COUNCIL (TRADERS' EVIDENCE).

Mr. MacDONALD (by Private Notice): asked the Prime Minister whether the Food Council have experienced any difficulties in obtaining from food traders the information necessary for the Council's work, and if so, what action the Government propose to take.

The PRIME MINISTER: The President of the Board of Trade has to-day received a report from the Food Council regarding the difficulties which they have experienced in obtaining information
from certain food traders. Copies of this report are being placed in the Library and it is being communicated to the Press. The Government are prepared to give the Food Council all the support required to enable them to obtain essential information and they are so informing the Council. Unless therefore within a reasonable period the requisite information is supplied to the Food Council by those traders who have so far failed to do so, the Government propose to ask Parliament to grant the necessary powers to the Council by means of a Resolution under the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act, 1921.

LOCAL LEGISLATION COMMITTEES.

Mr. MacLAREN: Owing to a recent decision of the Local Legislation Committee, it was deemed advisable that the Stoke-on-Trent Corporation should, if they wished to secure the passage of most of their Bill, delete those Clauses relative to the establishment of a municipal bank. As this is a matter of concern to many municipal authorities, I wish to ask your advice, Mr. Speaker, as to whether municipalities are precluded from seeking such powers, and, if so, upon what grounds.

Mr. SPEAKER: No, certainly not. Municipalities are not precluded from seeking such powers. As to what happens to an individual application, that is another matter for which I have no responsibility. That is a matter for the Committee upstairs.

Mr. MacLAREN: May I intimate to you, Sir, that as regards the particular Bill to which I refer—and I understand a similar fate met the Sheffield Corporation Bill—the Local Legislation Committee upstairs practically advised the authorities concerned that it would be prejudicial to the whole body of the Bill if they attempted even to discuss the virtues or otherwise of the proposition involved in the municipal bank Clauses. Some of us are anxious to know if a corporation Bill would be prejudiced by a free discusion before the Local Legislation Committee of the details of such a proposal.

Mr. SPEAKER: This is a Committee appointed by the House, and, personally,
I have no right to express an opinion on their proceedings in any way.

Mr. MAXTON: On your ruling, Sir, is it the case that you have no right to interfere with the operations of any Committee, even when it is acting improperly, within the Standing Orders of this House?

Mr. SPEAKER: I always hesitate to give a ruling in, vacuo. In this case, it is clear to me that the Committee was quite within its rights according to the Rules of the House, and that I have no right to express an opinion on the question at all.

Mr. MacLAREN: May I suggest that when we were anxious to press these Clauses of this Measure we were advised by the Committee upstairs that if it came down to the House you, yourself, Sir, would take exception to these Clauses in the Bill.

Mr. SPEAKER: People may anticipate, hypothetically, what I am going to do in certain circumstances, but they are proceeding on their own opinion—certainly not on mine.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. RAMSAY MacDONALD: Will the Prime Minister be good enough to tell us what business he proposes to take next week?

The PRIME MINISTER: On Monday, Supply, Committee (10th allotted day). I understand that the Opposition wish to discuss the question of the cable services and the beam, and we shall proceed with the appropriate Vote. I am not quite sure which it is. I think I ought to remind them of what has, I understand, been conveyed to them already—that, so far as the discussions of the Imperial Conference are concerned, we cannot make any statement about that until they have concluded their deliberations. I have made inquiries, and it may be another month. I will, however, put down the requisite Vote, and I only ask the Leader of the Opposition to bear that fact in mind. I should also say that at the request of the Opposition it is proposed to take the Home Office Prisons Vote afterwards, as a second Supply Service.
On Tuesday, we shall take the Second Reading of the Administration of Justice Bill [Lords] and the Committee stage of the necessary Money Resolution; the Second Reading of the Superannuation (Diplomatic Service) Bill and of the Straits Settlements and Johore Territorial Waters (Agreement) Bill [Lords].
On Wednesday, the Report and Third Reading of the National Health Insurance Bill, and further progress with the Reorganisation of Offices (Scotland) Bill.
On Thursday, we shall take the Motion for the Whitsuntide Adjournment until Tuesday, 5th June. The state of public business will not allow us to adjourn any longer. For the information of the House, I may mention that the business to be taken on Tuesday, 5th June, will be the Second Reading of the Finance Bill.
On any day, if there be time, other Orders will be taken.

Mr. MacDONALD: I suppose we may take it that on Thursday the House will meet at 11 o'clock?

The PRIME MINISTER: Yes.

Sir R. HUTCHISON: Will the House have any information as to the Government's proposals on rating before the Second Reading of the Finance Bill?

The PRIME MINISTER: I rather doubt it. I would like to have notice of that question. I do not think the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be back in his place before Whitsuntide. He ought to take another week's rest.

Sir R. HUTCHISON: Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that it is almost impossible to discuss the Second Reading of the Finance Bill unless we have the necessary information on the rating proposals?

The PRIME MINISTER: No, I do not see the strength of that point.

Sir B. PETO: With regard to the Racecourse Betting Bill, which is now being discussed in Committee upstairs, would the right hon. Gentleman consider the possibility of allowing a little time to give Members of that Committee an opportunity of attending a racecourse on Wednesday?

Mr. STEPHEN: Is there only going to be one day for the Second Reading of the Finance Bill?

The PRIME MINISTER: That is the usual time allowed.

Sir ARCHIBALD SINCLAIR: Does not the Prime Minister realise that the difficulty of discussing the Second Reading of the Finance Bill, without some information about the rating proposals, arises from the fact that taxation is being imposed this year which is not being expended this year, but is being held up in order to meet the needs of the rating scheme of the Government?

The PRIME MINISTER: I think enough has been explained to enable hon. Members to judge whether or not they would support such a proposal.

Mr. SNOWDEN: Has the Prime Minister forgotten that the Chancellor of the Exchequer made a very definite statement that the Valuation Bill would be brought forward as soon as the Budget Resolutions were passed, and that is a fortnight ago?

The PRIME MINISTER: Yes, I remember him making that statement. I have been in consultation with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health and we fully expect the Bill to be published before the Recess, so that hon. Members may study it during the Recess.

The following Notice of Motion stood upon the Order Paper in the name of the PRIME MINISTER:
That the Proceedings on the Currency and Bank Notes Bill and the Bankers (Northern Ireland) Bill have precedence this day of the Business of Supply, and be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House).

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: On a point of Order. Am I right in supposing that this Notice of Motion contains two separate questions, and that they should be put separately?

Mr. SPEAKER: If hon. Members claim to have the Motion put as two separate Motions, I will put two questions.
Motion made, and Question put, "That the Proceedings on the Currency and Bank Notes Bill and the Bankers
(Northern Ireland) Bill have precedence this day of the Business of Supply."—[The Prime Minister.]

Division No. 126.]
AYES.
[4.1 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Gadle, Lieut.-Col. Anthony
Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)


Ainsworth, Lieut.-Col. Charles
Ganzonl, Sir John
Murchison, Sir Kenneth


Albery, Irving James
Gates, Percy
Nelson, Sir Frank


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Gauit, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)


Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby)
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Goff, Sir Park
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert


Apsley, Lord
Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter
Oakley, T.


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Sir H. (W'th's'w, E)
Oman, Sir Charles William C.


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Grotrian, H. Brent
Penny, Frederick George


Astor, viscountess
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Perkins, Colonel E. K.


Balniel, Lord
Hacking, Douglas H.
Perring, Sir William George


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Barnett, Major Sir Richard
Hamilton, Sir George
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Hammersley, S. S.
Pilditch, Sir Philip


Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)
Hanbury, C.
Pownall, Sir Assheton


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Preston, William


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Harland, A.
Price, Major C. W. M.


Bennett, A. J.
Harrison, G. J. C.
Raine, Sir Waiter


Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Ramsden, E.


Berry, Sir George
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Rees, Sir Beddoe


Bethel, A.
Haslam, Henry C.
Reid, Capt. Cunningham (Warrington)


Betterton, Henry B.
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Remnant, Sir James


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.


Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)
Henderson, Lieut.-Col. Sir Vivian
Rice, Sir Frederick


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell


Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Hills, Major John Wailer
Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.


Brass, Captain W.
Hilton, Cecil
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Salmon, Major I.


Brockiebank, C. E. R.
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Hopkins, J. W. W.
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.
Sandeman, N. Stewart


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Sanders, Sir Robert A.


Bullock, Captain M.
Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis
Sanderson, Sir Frank


Burman, J. B.
Hurd, Percy A.
Sandon, Lord


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Iliffe, Sir Edward M.
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.


Carver, Major W. H.
Iveagh, Countess of
Savery, S. S.


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Shepperson, E. W.


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth. S.)
Jephcott, A. R.
Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William
Skelton, A. N.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Kennedy, A, R. (Preston)
Smithers, Waldron


Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
King, Commodore Henry Douglas
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Christie, J. A.
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Churchman, Sir Arthur C.
Lamb, J. Q.
Sprot, Sir Alexander


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)


Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George
Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)
Steel, Major Samuel Strang


Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Handsw'th)
Streatfelld, Captain S. R.


Conway, Sir W. Martin
Loder, J. de V.
Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.


Cooper, A. Duff
Looker, Herbert William
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Couper, J. B.
Lougher, Lewis
Tasker, R. Inigo.


Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
Lowe, Sir Francis William
Thom, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)


Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)
Lumley, L. R.
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Curzon, Captain Viscount
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-


Dalkeith, Earl of
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Tinne, J. A.


Davies, Mat. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
MacIntyre, I.
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)
McLean, Major A.
Turton, Sir Edmund Russborough


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Macmillan, Captain H.
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Dean, Arthur Wellesley
MacRobert, Alexander M.
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)


Drewe, C.
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Eden, Captain Anthony
Malone, Major P. B.
Warrender, Sir Victor


Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Elliot, Major Walter E.
Margesson, Captain D.
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Ellis, R. G.
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Wells, S. R.


England, Colonel A.
Mason, Colonel Glyn K.
White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dairymple


Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)
Meller, R. J.
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Fanshawe, Captain G. D.
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Fielden, E. B.
Milne, J. S. Wardlan
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Foster, Sir Harry S.
Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Foxcroft, Captain C. T.
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Fraser, Captain Ian
Moore, Sir Newton J.
Wolmer, Viscount


Frece, Sir Walter de
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Womersley, W. J.

The House divided: Ayes, 242; Noes, 127.

Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.



Wood, E. (Chester, Stalyb'ge & Hyde)
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.
Major Sir George Hennessy and


Wood, Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (Norwich)
Major Cope.




NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (File, West)
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Hollins, A.
Scrymgeour, E.


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Hore-Bellsha, Leslie
Scurr, John


Attlee, Clement Richard
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Sexton, James


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Baker, Walter
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Shinwell, E.


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Barnes, A.
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)


Barr, J.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Smillie, Robert


Batey, Joseph
Kelly, W. T.
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Briant, Frank
Kennedy, T.
Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley)


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Snell, Harry


Buchanan, G.
Kirkwood, D
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Cape, Thomas
Lawson, John James
Spencer, G. A. (Broxtowe)


Charieton, H. C.
Lee, F.
Spoor, Rt. Hon. Benjamin Charles


Cluse, W. s.
Lindley, F. W.
Stamford, T. W.


Compton, Joseph
Lowth, T.
Stephen, Campbell


Connolly, M.
Lunn, William
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Cove, w. G.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R.(Aberavon)
Sullivan, J.


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Mackinder, W.
Sutton, J. E.


Dalton, Hugh
MacLaren, Andrew
Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey)


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
MacNeill-Weir, L.
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Day, Harry
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.
Thurtle, Ernest


Dennison, R.
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Tinker, John Joseph


Edge, Sir William
March, S.
Tomlinson, R. P.


Fenby, T. D.
Maxton, James
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.


Gibbins, Joseph
Montague, Frederick
Varley, Frank B.


Gillett, George M.
Morris, R. H.
Viant, S. P.


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Murnin, H.
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Greenall, T.
Oliver, George Harold
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Owen, Major G.
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Palln, John Henry
Wellock, Wilfred


Griffith, F. Kingsley
Paling, W.
Whiteley, W.


Groves, T.
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Lianelly)


Grundy, T. W.
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Ponsonby, Arthur
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Potts, John S.
Windsor, Walter


Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Purcell, A. A.
Wright, W.


Hardle, George D.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)



Harney, E. A.
Ritson, J.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)
Runciman, Hilda (Cornwall, St. Ives)
Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. B. Smith.


Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Runclman, Rt. Hon. Walter



Hirst, G. H.
Saklatvaia, shapurji

Motion made, and Question put, "That the Proceedings on the Currency and Bank Notes Bill and the Bankers (Northern Ireland) Bill be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the Provisions

Division No. 127.]
AYES.
[4.10 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Betterton, Henry B.
Charteris, Brigadier-General J.


Ainsworth, Lieut.-Col. Charles
Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Christie, J. A.


Albery, Irving James
Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)
Churchman, Sir Arthur C.


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Cobb, Sir Cyril


Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby)
Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Bowyer, Captain G. E. W
Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George


Applln, Colonel R. V. K.
Brass, Captain W.
Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips


Apsley, Lord
Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Cooper, A. Duff


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Couper, J. B.


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.


Astor, viscountess
Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)


Balniel, Lord
Bullock, Captain M.
Curzon, Captain viscount


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Burman, J. B.
Dalkeith, Earl of


Barnett, Major Sir Richard
Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)


Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)
Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon
Carver, Major W. H.
Davies, Dr. Vernon


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)


Bennett, A. J.
Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Dean, Arthur Wellesley


Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish
Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth. S.)
Drewe, C.


Berry, Sir George
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Eden, Captain Anthony


Bethel, A.
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)

of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[The prime Minister.]

The House divided: Ayes, 244; Noes, 133.

Elliot, Major Walter E.
Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Ellis, R. G.
Loder, J. de V.
Salmon, Major I.


England, Colonel A.
Looker, Herbert William
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)
Lougher, Lewis
Sandeman, N. Stewart


Fanshawe, Captain G. D.
Lowe, Sir Francis William
Sanders, Sir Robert A.


Fielden, E. B.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Sanderson, Sir Frank


Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
Lumley, L. R.
Sandon, Lord


Foster, Sir Harry S.
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.


Foxcroft, Captain C. T.
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Savery, S. S.


Fraser, Captain Ian
MacIntyre, I.
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley


Frece, Sir Walter de
McLean, Major A.
Shepperson, E. W.


Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony
Macmillan, Captain H.
Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)


Ganzonl, Sir John
Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm
Skelton, A. N.


Gates, Percy
MacRobert, Alexander M.
Smithers, Waldron


Gauit, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton
Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Makins, Brigadier-General E
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Goff, Sir Park
Malone, Major P. B.
Sprot, Sir Alexander


Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.


Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter
Margesson, Captain D.
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Sir H. (W'th's'w, E)
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)


Grotrian, H. Brent
Mason, Colonel Glyn K.
Steel, Major Samuel Strang


Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Meller, R. J.
Stuart, Crichton., Lord C.


Gunston, Captain D. W.
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Hacking, Douglas H.
Meyer, Sir Frank
Tasker, R. Inigo.


Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw
Thom, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)


Hamilton, Sir George
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Hammersley, S. S.
Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Hanbury, C.
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-


Hannon, Pat[...]ck Joseph Henry
Moore, Sir Newton J.
Tinne, J. A.


Harland, A.
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Harrison, G. J. C.
Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)
Turton, Sir Edmund Russborough


Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Murchison, Sir Kenneth
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Harvey, Majors. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Nelson, Sir Frank
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)


Haslam, Henry C.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Warrender, Sir Victor


Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Henderson, Lieut.-Col. Sir Vivian
Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert
Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)


Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.
Oakley, T.
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Wells, S. R.


Hills, Major John Walter
Pennefather, Sir John
White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dairymple-


Hilton, Cecil
Penny, Frederick George
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Hopkins, J. W. W.
Perring, Sir William George
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis
Pilditch, sir Philip
Wolmer, viscount


Hurd, Percy A.
Pownall, Sir Assheton
Womersley, W. J.


Illffe, Sir Edward M.
Preston, William
Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)


Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Price, Major C. W. M.
Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'ge & Hyde)


Iveagh, Countess or
Raine, Sir Walter
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)
Ramsden, E.
Wood, Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)


James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Rees, Sir Beddoe
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Jephcott, A. R.
Reid, Capt. Cunningham (Warrington)
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L


Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William
Remnant, Sir James
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (Norwich)


King, Commodore Henry Douglas
Rice, Sir Frederick



Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y. Ch'ts'y)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Lamb, J. Q.
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell
Major Sir George Hennessy and


Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Ropner, Major L.
Major Cope.


Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)
Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.





NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Hardle, George D.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Dalton, Hugh
Harney, E. A.


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon


Attlee, Clement Richard
Day, Harry
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Dennison, R.
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)


Baker, Walter
Edge, Sir William
Hirst, G. H.


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Fenby, T. D.
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)


Barnes, A.
Gibbins, Joseph
Hollins, A.


Barr, J.
Gillett, George M.
Hore-Bellsha, Leslie


Batey, Joseph
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)


Briant, Frank
Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Greenall, T.
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
John, William (Rhondda, West)


Buchanan, G.
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)


Cape, Thomas
Griffith, F. Kingsley
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)


Charleton, H. C.
Groves, T.
Jones, T. L. Mardy (Pontypridd)


Cluse, W. S.
Grundy, T. W.
Kelly, W. T.


Compton, Joseph
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Kennedy, T.


Connolly, M.
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.)


Cove, W. G.
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Kirkwood, D.




Lawson, John James
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Sutton, J. E.


Lie, F.
Ritson, J.
Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey)


Lindley, F. W.
Runciman, Hilda (Cornwall, St. Ives)
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Lowth, T.
Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter
Thurtle, Ernest


Lunn, William
Sakiatvaia, Shapurji
Tinker, John Joseph


MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)
Salter, Dr. Alfred
Tomlinson, R. P.


Mackinder, W.
Scrymgeour, E.
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.


MacLaren, Andrew
Scurr, John
Varley, Frank B.


MacNeill-Weir, L.
Sexton, James
Viant, S. P.


Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermilne)


Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Shiels, Dr. Drummond
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


March, S.
Shinwell, E.
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney


Maxton, James
Short, Altred (Wednesbury)
Weogwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah


Montague, Frederick
Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)
Wellock, Wilfred


Morris, R. H.
Smillie, Robert
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)
Whiteley, W.


Murnin, H.
Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Lianelly)


Oliver, George Harold
Smith, Rennle (Penistone)
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Owen, Major G.
Snell, Harry
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Palin, John Henry
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip
Windsor, Walter


Paling, W.
Spencer, George A. (Broxtowe)
Wright, W.


Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Spoor, Rt. Hon. Benjamin Charles



Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Stamford, T. W.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Ponsonby, Arthur
Stephen, Campbell
Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. B. Smith.


Potts, John S.
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)



Purcell, A. A.
Sullivan, Joseph

STANDING ORDERS.

Resolution reported from the Select Committee:
That, in the case of the Morecambe Corporation [Lords], Petition for Bill, the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with:—That the parties be permitted to proceed with their Bill.

Resolution agreed to.

Orders of the Day — CURRENCY AND BANK NOTES BILL.

Considered in Committee.

[Mr. JAMES HOPE in the Chair.]

CLAUSE 1.—(Amendment with respect to powers of Bank of England to issue bank notes.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: As this is the operative Clause which creates the Bank of England the note issuing authority, it will probably be for the convenience of the Committee if I make a brief preliminary statement as to the lines which my hon. Friends and I propose to take on the Committee stage of this Measure. Before I come to that, may I say a word of protest against the unnecessary celerity with which this Bill is being carried. It is a Bill of very great importance, and it has very far-reaching effects, and it would be reasonable for a longer time than has been allowed to elapse between the Second Reading and the Committee stage. In this connection, I hope that the Government will give very careful consideration, on their merits, to any Amendments that we put forward, and I hope they will not take their large majority on the Second Reading as an indication of the real feeling in this House or outside. I know that there is very good reason to believe that a very considerable number of Members in this House, while voting with the Government, have very grave misgivings as to the effect of this Bill upon trade and industry, and it is of supreme importance that anything that can be done to improve the Bill should be carefully weighed and considered and that the Government should meet us as far as they can in dealing with it.
Our Amendments have been put down to improve the Bill and not to destroy it or to recast it. My hon. Friends and I have recognised that it is not practicable to recast the Bill along the lines which we should wish, and that, even if it had been possible within the scope of the
Measure to take such a course, it would not have been a practical way of handling the Committee stage. Our Amendments, therefore, are by way of being what we might call plasters to make some little improvement in the text of the Bill as it stands. In particular, the Amendments that we have put down do not attempt to alter what is one of the fundamental provisions of the Bill, which is that it leaves the initiative with the Bank of England. That is why this first Clause assumes considerable significance, because, if this Clause be carried, the Bank of England will become again, in theory, at any rate, the sole initiator of the policy both as to credit and currency of this country, and to a very great extent the sole arbiter of the industrial destinies of this country.
In the course of the Second Reading of this Measure the Secretary of State for War endeavoured, if I may say so, to score a point off me by quoting an extract from what I had written a good many years ago on the question of finance, and banking in particular. I am quite impenitent as to what I wrote then, and I have had the opportunity between Monday and to-day of what the right hon. Gentleman called going as a student to my own classes and reading what I wrote. I confess that, though I was then a private individual and had not entered this House, I am amazed at the great restraint and moderation with which I expressed myself on this subject. As a matter of fact, what I there proposed, so far from being the wild impossible scheme which the right hon. Gentleman represented it to be, is in fact very little in advance of what is the actual practice of this country. Perhaps I had better quote the actual words as the right hon. Gentleman quoted them. What I said on that occasion was this:
One of the early actions of the Socialist Government would be, therefore, to secure that all decisions of the Bank of England which are of vital national concern, notably alterations in the Bank Rate, shall be subject to consultation with and control by the Treasury.
Anyone who is acquainted with the actual practice of what goes on, knows that even to-day the Bank of England does, in fact, consult the Treasury when it is proposing to take any important step with regard to any matters, and particularly with regard to changes in
the Bank Rate. Whether it can be said to be actually under the control of the Treasury in the matter would be, perhaps, putting it, at the present time, a little far, but does the right hon. Gentleman himself say that, even to-day if the Treasury and the Chancellor of the Exchequer had a very decisive and definite view with regard to the Bank Rate, the Bank would disregard that opinion and take an entirely opposite course? Even this very Bill shows that in the minds of the promoters themselves it is of the utmost importance that, in a great proportion of the doings of the Bank of England, they should be guided, and in a large measure controlled, by the Treasury. Therefore, what I suggested when I wrote that, was not very far different from the actual practice at the present time, but the point I was trying to make and which I still make, and which I hold to be of supreme importance is this, that in a matter affecting the whole destinies of industry, such as the currency and credit policy of this country, it is anomalous that the sole discretion should rest with a body which is, in theory at any rate, a private corporation. I yield to none in my appreciation of the integrity of the personnel of the Bank of England, its Governor and Directors. I doubt whether any similar private organisation in any other part of the world would have a record of disinterestedness as clean as the record of the Bank of England, but that does not mean that its decisions are always right or wise, or even that they are always free from bias.
It is quite a common thing for Members in this House and outside to talk of the two factors which are responsible for industry—the employers and the employed. Sometimes my hon. Friends behind me class the financial interest with the employers and put them on one side and the employed on the other. That division is entirely inadequate. There are really three factors which control industry at the present time—the employers on the one hand, the employés in the second place, and the financial interests in the third. Sometimes the financiers and the employers are on one side in a particular quarrel, and the employés are on the other; sometimes the financiers side with the men; and then there are the third
cases, where the financiers take one view and the interests of the employers and the employés are on the other side. It is not a question merely of consulting their own interests. It is a question of the bias which any particular body of men necessarily have of putting first the things which they see biggest, and putting further away the things which are least in their immediate ken, and giving to those things les importance. In my view, the Bank of England have never fully appreciated the grave injury to industries, and to both employers and employés, which was brought about by the deflation policy which they have constantly pursued for many years. It is very easy for the Bank to cause deflation, and very easy for those who are doing it to see the considerable advantages, not merely to themselves, but in the realm of finance, which deflation brings; and it is quite easy when grave results upon industry follow, for the financiers to attribute these results to entirely different causes.

The CHAIRMAN: I am not going to say that the hon. Gentleman's argument is irrelevant, but surely it is a very large argument on a Clause for giving the Bank of England power to issue small notes. All that the Clause does is to give to the Bank, rather than the Treasury, the power to issue notes.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I had practically finished the preliminary survey, and was coming to the point. What we are considering in this Clause is adding the note-issuing power to the Bank of England's credit-deciding power, and in consequence of that double power, the Bank will, if this Clause goes through as part of the Bill, have an authority and a power over the lives of the people and the furtherance of industry, that it has not had before. I was pointing out the great control which the Bank of England exerted, and the danger which resulted from deflation. The British lion roars very loud when he is attacked by a foreign foe, but the British lion, in the shape of British industry, allows its tail to be twisted by the Bank of England almost with impunity. Another point with regard to the Bank of England, to which I take exception, is their failure to call the conference which was adumbrated at Genoa.

The CHAIRMAN: That may be very relevant to the Second Reading, but it is not relevant to this Clause.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I will not pursue that point any further if you take that view. Because of the view which I hold, I feel that we ought not to be prepared to hand over these powers, as will be done by Clause 1, to the Bank of England, at any rate until we know more of what the policy of the Bank of England is going to be if this Bill be passed into law. Do they propose to continue the deflation policy which they have carried out up to now? Do they propose, on the other hand, to use the elasticity, which is provided by the later Clause in the Bill, to the full extent which some people hope? I would also like to ask this question of the Government. In the Debate on Monday, the Amendment which was moved from this side asked that before this Bill was carried, an inquiry should be held into the powers and constitution of the Bank of England. The Government resisted that Amendment, and the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland definitely said that, if an inquiry were necessary, it could be held as well after this Bill is passed as before. If this Bill be carried, do the Government propose afterwards to hold that inquiry? Failing satisfactory answers on these three points, it is my intention to ask my hon. Friends, and any of those who are willing to support me, to go into the Lobby against this Clause.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I did not intervene in the Debate on the Second Reading. That was not because I was satisfied with the speeches of the Financial Secretary, or of the Secretary of State for War, and I do not propose now to make the speech I intended to make on the Second Reading, but I will give briefly my reasons for supporting my hon. Friend in resisting Clause 1. This is the crucial part of the Bill, and it gives to the Bank of England the absolute monopoly south of the Tweed of issuing bank notes. This is a power that is greater than was held in the past by any absolute monarch, or by any feudal lord in the days of standing feudal armies. It puts into the hands of half-a-dozen men a power which was impossible up to 50 or 60 years ago, and these men, through this power, can affect the lives
of a greater number of the community than was possible in a less complicated and more primitive society. The Financial Secretary read out some remarks of Sir Robert Peel in 1844, in which he expressed great confidence in the Governors and the governing body of the Bank of England, and he said that he had similar confidence in the Bank to-day. I share it with him. The present governing body of the Bank of England is, no doubt, fit to be given the powers asked for in Clause 1 on their personality; but they are only men, and the Governor and directors may change, and the fact remains that this governing body represents the essence of the City of London. As surely as the hon. Gentleman sitting on the Back Bench represents the City of London in this House, they represent the views of the financial interests of the City of London. They are not responsible to this House, as far as I can gather—

The CHAIRMAN: The Bank of England, I understand, has powers, subject to their present Acts, to issue notes for £1,000, £100 and £5. This proposal is to give them power to issue notes for £1 and 10s. The difference between these powers seems hardly to warrant the general disquisition of the hon. and gallant Member.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I was going on to say that that power to issue Treasury notes has been a power held by the Treasury, and now we are surrendering this valuable right to this independently appointed body. That is not democracy, and this Clause should be resisted in the interests of democracy. This view is not held solely in the ranks of the party to which I belong; it is viewed with alarm by many business men of no party, and of the party of hon. Members opposite. This power is not even held in like degree in any other country. It may be in future abused; I do not say that it will be, but it may be, and it will be possible for the Bank of England, at some future date, to put pressure to bear on the Executive of the day. That temptation is too great to be left with this body of estimable men. I consider that this Bill should be resisted, and as this Clause is the most important of the Bill, we must begin our resistance now. This country fought a civil war in order that Parlia-
ment should be supreme in great matters affecting the lives of the people, and in resisting this proposal to surrender a power, which the Treasury has, to the Bank of England, we are carrying on a struggle, through the elected representatives of the people, which we thought had been won in the great battles of the Civil War. It is impossible to exaggerate the importance of the step which the House is invited to take by passing Clause 1. I look upon the powers now being given to the Bank of England as really reinforcing the citadel, the Kremlin of our financial and capitalistic system. I still believe in democracy, and I shall go into the Lobby to resist giving powers to the Bank of England which are greater than those possessed by Mussolini.

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I listened with great interest. to the speeches of my two hon. Friends, and particularly to the speech delivered by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy), who ends up with an analogy with Russia, which I hope the Committee will not pursue. My hon. and gallant Friend seems to think that the only way to manage currency on the basis of democracy, is to have it managed by the largest possible number of people. He objects, and I think the hon. Gentleman the Member for West Leicester (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence) objected, to the currency of this country being under the control of, I think he said, six persons. There is a very good reason why the number should not be more than six, because I doubt whether there are more than six people in the country who understand currency. Suppose we managed it on the broadest possible basis, with a complete appeal to democracy, what would we be bound to do? We would be bound to put ourselves under the advice of the best experts we could find. The whole question in this Clause is whether we are to take the line of using what we believe to be the best machinery for the purpose. There are alternatives, I know. We might follow the example of America. America is passing through a stage of very violent and dangerous speculation at the present time, which the Central Bank has found itself incapable of controlling. In London, we can nut some check on speculation. We might follow
the example of France. In France, the governor of the Bank of France is nominated by the Government of the day. The late governor was a man of great capacity; but they got themselves into such a mess in France as I hope we shall never attempt to emulate in this country, and it is only now that, with the greatest trouble, they are struggling to get out of it. It is possible, as a matter of pure theory, to devise a scheme which might accord much more nearly with the doctrines of democracy which my hon. and gallant Friend breaks down so terribly in his devotion to tradition, a devotion which is not shared by all his colleagues.

The CHAIRMAN: It is not in order for the right hon. Gentleman to go into the whole history of currency in this country on the question as to the difference between £5 and £1 notes.

Mr. RUNCIMAN: The only reason I have attempted to do so is that the whole basis of the argument is that those who support it do not approve of the system of managing the finances of this country through the Bank of England, or a central bank. If you think it unnecessary for me to stray over the white line and come into conflict with you, I shall certainly do what I can to keep within the limits o the question. What does the Amendment do?

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: There is no Amendment at all.

Mr. RUNCIMAN: The argument, then, is on the whole of Clause 1, so therefore I hope that you, Sir, will allow me greater freedom than I would have anticipated receiving under a mere Amendment changing "shall" into "may."

The CHAIRMAN: On Clause 1, I have had no Amendment. It will not be in order for the hon. Member to go into the question of the whole relations between the Bank of England and the Government and the powers of the Bank of England. It will be in order to show cause whether or not this general power of issuing small notes shall be included within the powers of the bank.

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I defer quite strictly to your ruling in this matter, and I would urge this one simple and, as I think, fundamental point, namely, that the issue of £1 and 10s. notes in unlimited quantity
is detrimental to the best interests of industry and particularly to the interests of the wage-earning class in this country. It seems not to be generally recognised that inflation of the currency injures the wage-earning class and the salary-earning class more than any other class. It is an absolutely certain way of reducing the real value of wages without making any change in the nominal value of wages. If on no other ground than that, I should have hoped that every effort would have been made to avoid any danger of undue inflation. What does this Bill do, and what is stated in Clause 1?

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I am not an inflationist.

Mr. RUNCIMAN: How comes my hon. and gallant Friend to make such a fundamental error? What does this proposal really amount to? It is to hand over to a combination, if you like, of the Treasury and the Bank of England, this portion of our currency, the £1 and the 10s. note issue. Whether the amount which fixed in the Bill is or is not the right amount, is not for me to discuss now. At all events, we regularise it. It is open to the Treasury, under the Statutes as they stand at the present time, to have an almost unlimited currency; it is only because they have, by Treasury Minute, decided to follow the recommendations of the Cunliffe Committee, that there has been a gradual diminution in the currency. That deflation has gone on gradually—painfully it may be in some quarters, but it has gone on gradually—and has brought us into our present position. If this arrangement between the Government and the Bank of England were to fall down altogether, the effect would be to leave the matter to the decision of the Government of the day; because that is what it really comes to.
When you talk about leaving these matters to the decision of Parliament, you really mean that you leave them to the decision of the Executive, which receives the support of the majority of Parliament. That is what it really amounts to; and it would mean that you would be swaying to and fro, as majorities changed after a General Election, in your policy with regard to currency, to the great detriment of the very interests which we are sent here to represent. That swaying to and fro is one of the
most dangerous things possible, not only to internal industry but also to foreign trade. We have reached a state of stability in our foreign exchanges, of which we are not yet reaping the advantage. We shall reap that advantage from now onwards, and, as time goes on, we shall find that the possession of the advantage of a currency which is limited in amount and which cannot he permanently altered without the consent of Parliament is one of the essential safeguards, not only of foreign trade, but of internal industry as well.
What objection can there be to handing over this power to the Bank of England? It is not the constitution of the Bank; because, although that is illogical, it has worked well, and experience has justified it. ft is not that there is any suggestion that those who are on the Bank Court, or those who are responsible for its administration in a permanent capacity, have ever abused their power or are likely to abuse their power. The only thing that one can see, as one watches the changes in personnel, is that you might quite conceivably have a Governor of the Bank who was more of an inflationist than the present Governor. There have been Governors in the past who were not so afraid of inflation as the present Governor is; and that change in personnel is a matter of very great importance. It might affect the attitude of the Bank in its recommendations to the Treasury with regard to the extension of this issue of £1 and 10s. notes. The safeguard against that is that the concurrence of the Treasury must be obtained. In effect that means that there must be the consent of this House, such as it may be.
The machinery by which you reach the laving of your Minute, the other steps which are taken to obtain the concurrence of Parliament—all those are various safeguards. I can imagine even better safeguards than are provided for in this Bill. I am not quite sure that, for instance, the two years' interval provided for in a later Clause of the Bill does not give rather a wide margin of time. A good deal of harm and damage might be done within two years; and I should like to see the direct control of this House brought to bear upon the Bank of England and the Treasury within narrower limits than two years; but that is a different point from the
point raised in this Clause. If this Clause were to be thrown out it would mean that the whole arrangement, which has been outlined in the Second Reading and on the Budget, would fall through; it would mean that the issue of these two denominations, £1 and 10s. notes, would remain under the control of the Treasury; and when my hon. Friend says that there are many people in the country, and in this House, who are apprehensive about the proposed changes, I would tell him that there are a thousand times more people who would be apprehensive about leaving the control of the currency entirely in the hands of the Government of the day. The initiative, coining from the Bank of England, is one of the securities which the business community, and those who act in positions of trust for vast numbers of employés and workpeople all over the country, regard it as of the first importance. That the initiative should come from the Bank, if there is to be any increase in the currency beyond the limits set out in this Bill, seems to us to be of the first importance. In those circumstances, I think the plan of the Bill is a sound one.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Might I ask the right hon. Member for West Swansea (Mr. Runciman) a question? On his argument, why not hand over the Mint also to the Bank, and give them the power of minting coins, and take it away from the Crown?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I can see no advantage in handing over the Mint to the Bank of England. The Mint is very well managed at present. Whatever profit is made out of the Mint appears in the miscellaneous revenue of the State, and whatever profits may be made out of these issues will appear also in the miscellaneous revenues of the State. It does not seem to me that anything is gained by handing over the management of the Mint to the Bank of England. The Mint is, after all, a purely manufacturing concern, turning bullion into coin. This is a matter for dealing with the whole volume of currency, a much more difficult and much more delicate matter. I conclude by saying that this scheme, as it is at present devised, is based upon the history of the past; it has borne the test of very strenuous times; and if we were to abandon it now and simply revert to the position which has obtained from 1914
up to the present time, we should run all the danger of political fluctuations and controversies arising from time to time with regard to the currency. I take it that the object of this Bill is to remove that subject altogether from the sphere of public and political controversy; and when that is done, we shall certainly have taken a great step forward in the stabilisation of our industry and commerce.

Lord HUGH CECIL: I have studied this Clause, and as I understood it, it maintains a principle already adopted in the Gold Standard Act, namely, that these currency notes are not to be exchangeable for gold; that is to say, they are in the nature of inconvertible currency. The Bank of England is authorised, in place of the Treasury, to issue the notes, but their existing character of inconvertibility is maintained. I would suggest that in that respect the Clause is defective. The right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken (Mr. Runcirnan) has adverted—and it is a view which the Government themselves strongly hold—to the danger of making this power of issuing notes susceptible to political pressure, and for that reason they prefer that the power of issuing notes shall be in the hands of the Bank of England rather than in the hands of the Treasury. But it is obvious that the safeguard of which the right hon. Gentleman spoke with so much emphasis, is after all not a very great safeguard. The Bank of England is a body of human beings, just like the Treasury, and is subject to the common frailty of our human nature, and, like the Treasury, it might be induced for some reason connected with some social or political question, to use this great power in a way which might not be desirable. The great advantage of having notes exchangeable at sight for gold, is that you cannot manipulate the currency. You have, that is to say, an independently fixed standard of value to which your notes must conform. It has been pointed out by economists that gold itself is not an unchangeable standard, but it has the great merit that it is a commodity like other commodities, and that its exchangeable value, therefore, is not determined and cannot be determined by the authority, whether it be the Treasury or the Bank, which issues the notes.

The CHAIRMAN: Is this argument valid as regards £1 notes and not equally valid as regards £5 or £100 notes?

Lord H. CECIL: My point really is that the Clause is a defective Clause, and should be struck out, because it does not carry out the currency reform in the right shape. If the currency reform were to be made in what I conceive to be the truly scientific manner, it would go a little further. The Bill actually provides that a £5 note is in future to be cashed by the payment of £1 or 10s. notes. Paragraph (b) says:
The holders of banknotes for £5 and upwards shall be entitled, oil a demand made at any time during office hours at the head office of the Bank or, in the case of notes payable at a branch of the Bank, either at the head office or at that branch, to require in exchange for the said banknotes for £5 and upwards banknotes for £1 or 10s.
5.0 p.m.
I say that it ought to be, not £1 or 10s. notes but gold. The Government are, I think, the victims of a very dangerous mental error. They suppose that the value of gold will indefinitely maintain itself if you do not continue the demand for gold for its use for currency entirely. I do not believe that that is true. The whole of their fabric rests on the value of gold; the whole of their currency policy, quite rightly as I conceive, rests on it but if people do not use gold, then the value of gold, just as would be the case with anything else, will disappear or diminish. By not allowing gold to be used in ordinary currency, you take away what is really the main factor in maintaining the value of gold, namely, the demand for gold for use as currency. I need not say that value depends entirely on demand. There is no such thing as a value inherent in objects; it depends entirely on the taste which resides in the human mind, and not in the least in the material object; and if you destroy the taste of the people for using gold coins, the bottom will drop out of your currency system altogether. My hon. Friend opposite—I was not able to be present during the Debate. But read his very interesting speech—said that we were the schoolmaster of Europe in these matters; and that is largely true. If we return to the ordinary use of gold other people will, bit by bit, also return to the ordinary use of gold, and we shall maintain the demand for gold which
is at the bottom of our currency system—maintain the demand for gold and, consequently, maintain the value of gold. Of course it will be necessary to provide that when a note is cashed for gold that note shall not form part of the permitted fiduciary circulation, but that it shall be put aside; that is to say, when a gold coin has gone out. and a note has come in in exchange, that note shall be treated as though it were a gold coin, so that the total note circulation shall not be increased. That, of course, would be necessary in order to carry through the principle of the Bill and the object which the Government have in view, but, subject to that, I cannot imagine why you should not allow notes to be cashed in the ordinary way, to which people were accustomed to before the War, in exchange for gold which would be circulated by those who desire to use gold. Doubtless there would be a slight loss of gold through the rubbing of the coins as they pass from hand to hand, but that would not be a very considerable amount per year and it might well be afforded for this purpose, which really is of economic importance.
It is the greatest possible delusion to suppose that if you allow people all over the world to get into the habit of not using gold for currency you will permanently maintain the value of gold, and if you do not permanently maintain the value of gold, then the whole foundation of our currency system disappears. Therefore, I venture to urge on the Government that they should change their policy in that. respect, that they should set the example to Europe of resuming the use of gold coin in the ordinary transactions of life, with a view to maintaining that demand which, in respect to gold as in respect to every commodity, is the foundation and the essence of its value.

Mr. W. BAKER: The right hon. Gentleman who represents Oxford University (Lord H. Cecil) appears to have put his finger on one of the difficulties in regard to this Bill, but, having found that flaw, I think he has taken up a position which is quite untenable. I believe it is generally accepted to-day that the world supply of gold is altogether insufficient for modern needs, and that it will require extraordinary wisdom on the part of civilised nations if the small stock of gold is to be put to the best available use. I
did not expect there would be any opportunity to speak to the House on what I feared was too elementary a point, but, having regard to the interest which the right hon. Gentleman has displayed in the subject, perhaps I may be allowed to call attention to the very serious position in which the world finds itself in relation to any proposal to return to gold.
On the Second Reading of this Bill the Financial Secretary to the Treasury ventured to quote from a speech by Sir Robert Peel delivered in 1844. It may be that the Financial Secretary was well justified in choosing those memorable words which had struck his imagination. The words did not strike me, and I do not know how they struck the rest of the House. But one thing is absolutely certain, that it is quite futile to go back to Sir Robert Peel or any other celebrity who spoke in 1844 in order to find a sound financial policy for this country in the year 1928. The world to-day has not the slightest resemblance to the world in which Sir Robert Peel lived. In 1844 there had been no discovery of the Californian and Australian goldfields, those discoveries having taken place in 1848 and 1851. Prior to 1848 the world's average annual production of gold did not exceed £5,000,000. As a result of those two discoveries, the average annual production had increased by 1853 to £30,700,000. From that point the average annual production began to fall away, until it reached the figure of £19,000,000 in 1S82. Then our fortune stood us in good stead once more. The Transvaal goldfield were found in 1886. [Interruption]. I do not know whether Mr. Hope is in the Chair, or someone else, but I object to anyone else suggesting that I am out of order.

The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Sir Laming Worthington-Evans): I submit that this argument is entirely out of order. Clause 2 does deal with the cover of notes by gold, but Clause 1, with which we are dealing now, does nothing of the sort.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: May I submit, with great respect, that by this Clause we are altering Section 6 of the Bank Act, and taking away the right of the subject to receive gold in exchange for Bank of England notes, and that every word of the argument of my hon. Friend the Member for East Bristol
(Mr. Baker) is most relevant, as was that of the Noble Lord the Member for Oxford University (Lord H. Cecil)? An understanding of this question is essential to the Committee before we vote.

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: The hon. and gallant Member is wrong when he states that this Clause takes away the right of the subject to receive gold coin in exchange for Bank of England notes. That right was taken away by the Gold Standard Act, 1925, and it is not affected by this Bill.

Mr. JAMES HUDSON: Is it not the case that in Sub-section (5) of this Clause we are discussing this very right, whether it has been taken away or not Should it not be in the power of those who are debating this matter to deal with Sub-section (5) which, if it does not take away any right, provides that the workman shall not have a right to have his wages paid in gold?

The CHAIRMAN: I do not think that point arises at this moment. Undoubtedly under Sub-section (3,a) the fact of these small notes being made legal tender for any amount does, as it appears to me, following the line of argument of the Noble Lord the Member for Oxford University (Lord H. Cecil), raise the question of the gold circulation. How far it will be possible to pursue that question I can only judge when the Debate has further developed.

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I do not wish to interfere with the Committee, and I have not intervened before, although we have been having a Second Reading Debate. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!".] All this Clause says is that £1 notes shall be legal tender to any amount, and that five £1 notes may be paid in exchange for a £5 note. But £1 notes are not now exchangeable for gold coin nor are £5 notes, and so my submission is that this very interesting review of the gold production of the world during the last century is not really in order.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: May I submit that the Noble Lord's argument was that it would keep up the value of the currency, with which this Clause deals, if we did not have gold coins withdrawn? I submit that my hon. Friend the Member for East Bristol (Mr. W.
Baker) is perfectly entitled, in answer to that, to show that the gold supplies of the world are falling off, and that the danger is in the other direction.

The CHAIRMAN: As we have a Clause which multiplies small currency and makes it legal tender, I do not see how we can debate it without reference to the ultimate basis of gold.

Mr. W. BAKER: I am greatly obliged to you, Mr. Chairman, for your ruling. I was endeavouring to show that it was only the good fortune of the discovery of the Transvaal goldfields in 1886 which enabled the gold supply to expand in any reasonable relation to the world's need. We have to remember that that fortunate discovery was coupled with the invention of the cheque system at an earlier date, to which reference was made on the Second Reading. In these circumstances I would respectfully submit to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxford University that it is quite impossible ever to contemplate a return to gold coinage in this country. That is not my difficulty regarding this Bill—my difficulty is quite a different one—but on that point I believe that every authority of any importance is in absolute agreement that such a return is quite impossible. As a matter of fact the annual production of gold has fallen at the moment to a figure which is approximately £70,000,000—at least, that is the last figure which I could obtain, and that was for the year 1920. It is probable that the figure to-day is worse and not better. The world's surface has been pretty thoroughly explored, and it is highly improbable, to put it no higher, that we shall have any gold discoveries of equal importance to those of the past.
In these circumstances, I believe—and this is my point with regard to this Bill—that the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War was an extremely enlightened individual when he was at the Conference at Genoa and was presenting a report which has been referred to twice already during the Second Reading Debate. Reference has been made to the right hon. Gentleman's statement regarding the Justinian Code. I do not want to say anything with regard to that part of his statement, but there are other points in his remarks which are well worthy of the attention
of the Committee. May I interpolate here the remark that I am certain the Committee are extremely sorry the Chancellor of the Exchequer is not able to be present? It is no part of my business to flatter the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War, but when I heard that he was likely to be in charge of this Bill in Committee, I felt, in view of his pronouncements at Genoa, that it might be to the national advantage that the one enlightened member of the Government on financial questions should be in charge of this Bill. I think the right hon. Gentleman when he is reminded of the things he said at Genoa will stand by them. He said:
In the resolutions which have been passed under the head of currency there is embodied the principle of preventing undue fluctuations in the purchasing power of gold, and therefore, equally, in the purchasing power of currencies based on gold. Regulation of prices in this sense means the regulation of credit. The experience both of the Bank of England and of the Federal Reserve Board in the United States since the War has demonstrated afresh the sensitiveness of prices to credit conditions. Thus the power to influence prices, and the responsibility for using that power, belong to the great central banks.

The CHAIRMAN: Is it a part of the hon. Member's argument that the multiplication of currency notes of small denominations, which will he legal tender and not exchangeable for gold, was dealt with by the right hon. Gentleman in his observations at Genoa?

Mr. BAKER: I venture to submit that the Clause we are considering proposes to amend the powers of the Bank of England in relation to the issue of certain bank notes, and the case I am endeavouring to support, in an imperfect way, is that this step is premature until the necessary inquiry has taken place into the form of central banks, and until we have had the promised thorough investigation into the present powers of the Bank of England.

The CHAIRMAN: I think that may arise on the Clause dealing with the date of operation, but I have already ruled, in relation to the observations of the hon. Member for West Leicester (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence) that the question of the central banks cannot really arise here.

Mr. BAKER: With all respect I would submit that in this Clause we are en-
deavouring, to use the words in the margin of the Clause, to amend the powers of the Bank of England to issue bank notes. Surely it is in order to give reasons why those powers should not be granted to the Bank of England for certain specific reasons which I propose to submit to the Committee.

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is really making a Second Reading speech. This Clause deals with the power to issue small notes and their legality of tender. The question of the central banks cannot possibly arise on this Motion. It might be argued that on Clause 13 the date ought to be put off in this connection, but I do not think that question is relevant here.

Mr. BAKER: I will endeavour to obey your ruling, Mr. Chairman. The point am anxious to deal with is that the Bank of England, as at present constituted, is not a proper and suitable body to have the power of issuing pound notes and ten shilling notes up to the maximum sum laid down, in the Bill. During the Second Reading Debate a great many bouquets were thrown at the Bank of England and the Directors of that Bank by hon. Members who claim a personal acquaintance with those distinguished persons. On this question I can speak from the outside because I have no knowledge of the Directors of the Bank of England in any shape or form. I submit that the Bank of England at the moment is altogether unsatisfactory as a machine to control our national finance.

The CHAIRMAN: That is exactly what I have just ruled out of order. The whole position of the Bank of England could not arise on this Motion. The Bank of England has very large powers, and this is a proposal to add something to those powers, but the whole question of their present powers cannot be discussed on this Motion.

Mr. BAKER: I was proposing to deal with the powers which this Bill confers, and I submit that the Bank of England should not be entrusted with the task of issuing this fiduciary issue. I would like to know if that would be in order.

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member was arguing that the Bank of England was not properly constituted to control the finances of the country, and that is
exactly what I have ruled to be out of order.

Mr. J. HUDSON: May I submit that until this Bill becomes law the Treasury has power with regard to the number of currency notes to be issued, and as long as the Treasury has that power surely the absolute power of the Bank of England is limited. What we are discussing in connection with this Clause is a proposal to convert the limit of the powers now existing in the Bank -of England into an absolute power given to the Treasury, and that is an extremely dangerous thing to do.

The CHAIRMAN: That is not the case. The hon. Member must show that this particular grant of power will produce some evil that the present powers do not produce.

Mr. BAKER: I thought I was doing that. I think I can quote an authority on this point which will be accepted in support of my point of view that the Bank of England should not be entrusted with the power to issue the fiduciary issue. The Midland Bank Monthly Review for March-April, 1928, contends that:
Our financial machinery is out of date having regard to modern requirements and that it will become increasingly so if modern productive capacity is to be developed to its fullest extent.
I submit that the views of Mr. Reginald McKenna should be heard with very great respect, and his views should be very carefully considered in relation to this problem. I believe that the Bank of England and our method of controlling central finance is in urgent need of review and investigation.

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is arguing directly contrary to my Ruling. I think I-have given the hon. Member a good deal of latitude, and I desire to point out to him what he is now dealing with involves the whole financial relations of the Treasury and the Bank, and that is out of order.

Mr. BAKER: I wish to comply with your ruling Mr. Chairman, and I was doing my best to do so.

The CHAIRMAN: I quite appreciate what the hon. Member says, and perhaps there will be an opportunity at a later
stage for him to deal with the point which he wishes to raise.

Sir HILTON YOUNG: It appears to me that the observations of the Noble Lord the Member for Oxford University (Lord H. Cecil) need a direct reply. The Noble Lord argued that the powers of issuing small notes under the first Clause of this Bill should not be extended unless at the same time the notes were convertible into gold. I am sure that neither the Noble Lord nor the Secretary of State for War desire it to go out that our currency is an inconvertible currency, or that we have at the present time a paper currency which is inconvertible. That is not so. Our currency at the present time is based on a sound bullion standard, and that stabilises the value of the paper currency in relation to gold. As I understand it, the Noble Lord desires to see gold back in circulation. It appears to me and to higher authorities than myself, that the arguments against that course are overwhelming. In the first place, it is very expensive. You lose the interest of the gold in circulation at a cost perhaps of between £7,000,000 and R10,000,000 a year; no small matter. In the second place, the gold in circulation would not be fulfilling its essential purpose in the banking system. When it is in circulation it is not available for the essential purposes for which you want it.
There are two essential purposes. The first is for the gold to be used as an internal reserve in time of crisis; and the second is for the purposes of international payments. For purposes of supplying confidence in internal crises it is no good when in circulation because when the crisis arises it disappears into hoards. Secondly, when in circulation it is less readily available for international payments. There is a final and overwhelming reason against a return to the gold circulation at the

Division No. 128.]
AYES.
[5.23 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Birchall, Major J. Dearman


Albery, Irving James
Balniel, Lord
Blundell, F. N.


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Boothby, R. J. G.


Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby)
Barnett, Major Sir Richard
Bourne, Captain Robert Croft


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. s.
Beckett. Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)
Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.


Apsley, Lord
Bennett, A. J.
Brass, Captain W.


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-
Briant, Frank


Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.
Berry, Sir George
Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive


Atholl, Duchess of
Bethel, A.
Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Betterton, Henry B.
Broun-Lindsay, Major H.

present time, and it is that if it were to be put about that this country at the present time was going to adopt a gold circulation instead of a paper circulation or if any other great country were to allow it to be put about that they desired to do so, I believe it would create a financial panic all through the civilised world, because of the threat to the gold supply and the incident threat to prices which that would bring. There is no certainty about the future of the gold supply. But all the available evidence goes to show that the supply will not be equal to the demand in the future. So far from those dangers which have been mentioned of gold losing its value as an article in demand, the contrary threat is more imminent that gold will rise in value, and that we nay be in for a long period of falling prices. That is what led the authorities t Genoa in particular to come to the conclusion that every possible means should be taken to husband our gold supply.

May I invite the attention of the Noble Lord the Member for Oxford University to the evidence given before a recent inquiry into the currency system in India? Evidence was given by the leading authorities of Germany, France, the United States and this country to the effect that what the world needed today was to husband its gold supply. It was considered that the threat of gold going into circulation in India might lead to a financial panic, and a period of falling prices, disastrous to trade. It is for these reasons that at the present time the great hulk of the evidence is against the argument which has been put forward by the Noble Lord.

Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 239; Noes, 109.

Brown, Brig.-Gen. H.C.(Berks, Newb'y)
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Rees, Sir Beddoe


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Hills, Major John Waller
Reid, D. D. (County Down)


Buckingham, Sir H.
Hilton, Cecil
Remnant, Sir James


Burman, J. B.
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Rentoul, G. S.


Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Hope, Capt. A. o. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)
Rice, Sir Frederick


Carver, Major W. H.
Hopkins, J. W. W.
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sury, Ch'ts'y)


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Hudson, Capt. A. u. M.(Hackney, N.)
Ropner, Major L.


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth. s.)
Hudson, R. S. (Cumberl'nd. Whiteh'n)
Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Hurd, Percy A.
Runciman, Hilda (Cornwall, St. Ives)


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.)
Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Iveagh, Countess of
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnhamt


Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Sandeman, N. Stewart


Christie, J. A.
Jephcott, A. R.
Sanders, Sir Robert A.


Churchman, Sir Arthur C.
Kennedy, A. R. (Preston).
Sanderson, Sir Frank


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Kindersley, Major G. M.
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A, G.
King, Commodore Henry Douglas
Savery, S. S.


Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley


Cooper, A, Duff
Knox, Sir Alfred
Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)


Cope, Major William
Lamb, J. Q.
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Couper, J. B.
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Skelton, A. N.


Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine.C.)


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)
Loder, J. de V.
Smithers. Waldron


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Looker, Herbert William
Somervllie, A. A, (Windsor)


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Dalkeith, Earl of
Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Llmley, L. R.
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)
Lynn, Sir R. J.
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)


Davies, Dr. Vernon
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen
Steel, Major Samuel Strang


Dean, Arthur Wellesley
Maclntyre, I.
Streatfeild, Captain S. R.


Drewe. C.
McLean, Major A.
Stuart, Crichton, Lord C.


Eden, Captain Anthony
Macmillan, Captain H.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)
Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Elliot, Major Walter E.
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James 1.
Tasker, R. Inigo.


Ellis, R. G.
MacRobert, Alexander M.
Templeton, W. P.


Fanshawe, Captain G. D.
Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)
Thorn, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)


Fielden, E. B.
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey)


Forestier-Walker, Sir L,
Malone, Major P. B.
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Foster, Sir Harry S.
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Fraser, Captain Ian
Margesson, Captain D,
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-


Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Tinne, J. A.


Gaibraith, J. F. VI.
Mason, Colonel Glyn K.
Tomlinson, R. P.


Gates, Percy
Meller, R. J.
Turton, Sir Edmund Russborough


Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)


Goff, Sir Park
Meyer, Sir Frank
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Milne. J. S. Wardlaw-
Warrender, Sir Victor


Grenfell. Edward C. (City of London)
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Griffith, F. Kingsley
Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Grotrlan, H. Brent
Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)
Wells, S. R.


Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Murchison, Sir Kenneth
White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dalrymple-


Gunston, Captain D. W.
Nelson, Sir Frank
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Hacking, Douglas H.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)
Meld, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Hamilton, Sir George
Oakley, T.
Winby, Colonel L. P.


Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Owen, Major G.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Hammersley, S. S.
Pennefather, Sir John
Withers, John James


Hanbury, C.
Penny, Frederick George
Wolmer, Viscount


Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Womersfey, W. J.


Harland, A.
Perkins, Colonel E. K.
wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)


Harney, E. A.
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'ge & Hyde)


Harrison, G. J. C.
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Hartington. Marquess of
Pilcher, G.
Woodcock. Colonel H. C.


Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Pilditch, Sir Philip
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Haslam, Henry C.
Pownall, Sir Assheton
Young. Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (Norwich)


Headiam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Preston, William



Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Price. Major C. W. M.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.
Raine, Sir Walter
Major The Marquess of Titchfield


Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Ramsden, E.
and Captain Wallace.




NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Broad, F. A.
Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Gibbins, Joseph


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Buchanan, G.
Gillett, George M.


Ammon, Charles George
Cape, Thomas
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)


Attlee, Clement Richard
Charleton, H. C.
Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Connolly, M,
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)


Baker, Walter
Cove, W. G.
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Dalton, Hugh
Groves, T.


Barnes, A.
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Grundy, T. W.


Barr, J.
Day, Harry
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)


Batey, Joseph
Dennison, R.
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)




Hardie, George D.
Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Paisley)
Stamford, T. W.


Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Montague, Frederick
Stephen, Campbell


Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Henderson, T. [Glasgow)
Murnin, H.
Sullivan, Joseph


Hirst, G. H.
Oliver, George Harold
Sutton, J. E.


Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
palin, John Henry
Thurtle, Ernest


Hollins, A.
Paling, W.
Tinker, John Joseph


Hudson, J. H. (Huddertfield)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.


Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Ponsonby, Arthur
Varley, Frank B.


John, William (Rhondda, West)
Potts, John S.
Viant, S. P.


Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Purcell, A. A.
Wallhead, Richard C.


Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Ritson, J.
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Kelly, W. T.
Saklatvaia, Shapurji
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah


Kennedy, T.
Salter, Or. Alfred
Wellock, Wilfred


Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Scrymgeour, E.
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


Kirkwood, D.
Scurr, John
Whiteley. W.


Lawson, John James
Sexton, James
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Lianelly)


Lee. F,
Shiels, Dr. Drummond
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Lindley, F. W.
Shinwell, E.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Lowth, T.
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Wright, w.


Lunn, William
Smillie, Robert
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Maekinder. W.
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhlthe)



MacLaren, Andrew
Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)
Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr. Hayes.


March, S.
Snell, Harry



Maxton, James
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip

CLAUSE 2.—(Amount of Bank of England note issue.)

Mr. LEES-SMITH: I beg to move, in page 2, line 40, to leave out the word "shall," and to insert instead thereof the word "may."
This Amendment is intended to lead up to the next Amendment in my name—in page 2, line 41, to leave out the word "sixty," and insert instead thereof the word "seventy-five"—and, with your permission, Mr. Hope, I will argue the two Amendments together, although we may take a separate Division finally on each, without a separate argument on the second. Clause 2 fixes the fiduciary circulation at £260,000,000, and the object of these Amendments is to increase that sum to £275,000,000. My reason for moving this Amendment is to express our view that the fiduciary circulation provided at the present moment in this Bill is too strictly limited—that it is too low, that it does not allow enough elbow room, that it does not give sufficient margin for the contingencies which the Bank Reserve has to meet, and that consequences may follow which we particularly wish to avoid.
The chief evil that we fear is the evil of deflation, with its results on employment and on the revival of trade: and the chief danger, as we see it, that may be inherent in this Bill is that it leads to the possibility, indeed the probability, of deflation by the action of the Bank of England, which probability is, in our opinion, intensified by fixing the fiduciary
issue at this limit of only £260,000,000. This view is very widely held, and, if I may quote an authority frequently quoted in the House, I notice a very long letter in the "Times" by Mr. J. M. Keynes expressing this view, and stating that in his opinion the limit of the fiduciary issue ought to be £300,000,000, a larger sum than we are now proposing. In order to explain why we put the figure at £275,000,000, may I remind the Committee of the figures which were given to us by the Financial Secretary and by the Secretary of State for War during the Second Reading Debate? It is our policy to maintain in this country a gold reserve in actual gold of £160,000,000, and that, of course, is in accordance with the recommendations of the Cunliffe Committee and there will, therefore, be in circulation notes to the value of £160,000,000, with that gold reserve behind them.
Then the Bill provides that, in addition, there shall be a fiduciary issue of £260,000,000 without any gold reserve behind it. Those two figures together give a total note issue of £420,000,000. It is agreed that. the circulation of notes in the country—the domestic circulation—for purposes of trade, in the banks, in the pockets of the people and in the hands of the consuming public amounts, at any moment, to from £370,000,000 to £380,000,000, according to the season of the year. Putting it at £370,000,000, that means that, of the total of £420,000,000, £370,000,000 is in the hands of the public, leaving the Bank of England with a
reserve of £50,000,000 in notes. I have looked at the actual Bank return of last Thursday, and find that the reserve there was £45,000,000.
Our argument is that a reserve which averages round about £45,000,000—which may fall to £40,000,000, and practically never gets beyond £50,000,000—will be found to be insufficient for the contingencies that it has to meet, particularly if they come in combination, as they may, if you have a revival of trade, or particularly if you have a drain from abroad, and if this comes at the same time as, say, the special demand which the Christmas season will produce. The Secretary of State for War gave us figures last Monday which showed quite clearly that this amount was broadly the same as is provided by the present system, but that does not satisfy us, because of the delicacy, the instability, of the existing position, which was shown only a short time ago, when the proposal of the Bank of France to withdraw quite a small proportion of the gold which it had in London created such perturbation that remonstrances had to be made, almost of a diplomatic nature, and we really forfeited the claim that we put forward that London is a free gold market.
Let us consider what the prospects are The Bank of France has about 2100,000,000 in London, and the other foreign banks have at least another £100,000,000, perhaps £200,000,000; so that there are between £200,000,000 and £300,000,000 of foreign deposits in London. It would require a very small crisis abroad, a very small movement from abroad to withdraw gold, to reduce that amount by 10 per cent., or £20,000,000 to £30,000,000, and, if that occurred, the gold reserve would fall from £50,000,000 to £30,000,000 or less. 'The Bank of England could not allow that to continue even by itself, but, supposing that it coincided with an increase of demand owing to increased circulation, say, at Christmas, what would be the result? The Bank would then either have to come to the Treasury for these emergency powers—which it would be extremely unwilling to do, because the very request would mean a lowering of its prestige—or it would have to raise the Bank Rate, and set in progress that deflation the possibility of which we desire
to avoid, with all the checks to trade revival and prosperity which it brings with it.
That is the reason for this Amendment, I hope we are not going to be told, as we have been told already, that because we put forward these views we are inflationists. This proposal is no more inflation than the proposal of the Government that the Bank of England may increase its fiduciary circulation with Treasury consent. What we propose is that the Bank shall have power so that, instead 'of having to meet these contingencies by these exceptional measures or by raising the bank rate, it shall have sufficient margin to be able to meet these contingencies as part of the daily mechanism of the Bank.

Mr. OLIVER STANLEY: I have neither the confidence nor the competence to detain the Committee more than a few minutes. I have a very imperfect understanding of the difficult problems that are raised, but I am strengthened in my temerity by the right hon. Gentleman's statement, which would lead one to believe that if we left the Debate to those who have a complete knowledge and a perfect understanding of these problems your task, Sir, would come to a premature and not perhaps unpleasant conclusion. We must all agree with the hon. Member that the Amendment raises no point of party politics whatever and that it does not raise the cry of inflation. There may be Members opposite who are inflationists. If so I am certain they will not agree to a limitation of this fiduciary issue to the sum of £275,000,000, and it therefore becomes a mere economic question between two sets of people who are striving to arrive at some figure, and that is a minimum figure to meet the needs of the time in bank rates without running the risk of those notes being underestimated.
There is some difficulty in discussing the Clause independently of Clause 8, because it may be an answer for the right hon. Gentleman to say that, whether or not the amount fixed in this Clause is sufficient, the difficulty can easily be got over by recourse to procedure under Clause 8. That may or may not be. There are, I think, certain difficulties with regard to that procedure, but in any case, before we come to Clause 8, it would be useful to ascertain on this Amendment
whether the Government, in fixing this amount, have fixed an amount which they believe will only be exceeded in very exceptional circumstances or whether they believe it is an amount which may quite easily, in fact probably, be exceeded and therefore the procedure under Clause 8 may become a matter almost of regular practice. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury on the Second Reading gave us a very clear and intelligible account of how this £260,000,000 was arrived at but even he will admit, I am sure, that his analysis of that sum showed that the estimate was a very close one and that, even granting the correctness of the figure of £6,000,000 for the Free State notes, there is certainly no unrevealed margin in the figure and that therefore the only possible margin, as compared with the present position, is a sum of slightly over £1,000,000.
The further demands made on the note issue fall under two heads. The first is dependent either on an increase in trade or on circumstances connected with the foreign exchange. That has been very fully dealt with already. I do not want to repeat arguments which have already been advanced but I want to ask a question with regard to the other possible demand, and that is the seasonal demand for notes in the holiday periods. It is a demand which even in the past has put a considerable strain at various times on the fixed amount of the note issue, and what I should like to know is whether there is any truth in what one sometimes hears in the City, that invariably during the last two years what one might call the rush hours have been preceded by large payments in to the Bank of England of bank notes. If that be so, I should like to know what is the reason of those payments in. It is obviously important to know if they come from some reason that is permanent, if we can expect that those large payments in will continue whatever may happen or whether they are due to some fortuitous circumstance which may come to an end and may put us in the position that the peak of past years on which after all this limitation is fixed was a false peak in that it was reduced from the proper level by these fortuitous payments in and that by the cessation of those payments in you might find yourself, and perhaps fairly soon, faced with a large increase of demand.
I should be very glad if the right hon. Gentleman could assure me on that point.
There is one other point which I am afraid will not appeal to hon. Members opposite. It is with regard to the position of the shareholders of the Bank of England under this Clause and the possibility of the fixed amount in this Clause being excluded and recourse being had to the procedure under Clause 8. The hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton), in the Second Reading Debate, spoke of the Bank of England as a profit-making concern and accused the governor and the directors of pandering to the desire to make profits for their shareholders. If that is so, the governor and the directors stand condemned, not for immorality but for inefficiency.

The CHAIRMAN: This is more relevant to Clause 6, is it not?

Mr. STANLEY: I think not, if I may develop my argument. It is that if £260,000,000 is not enough and recourse has to be made to Clause 8, shareholders of the Bank of England will be prejudiced. I do not think anyone can accuse the Bank of England of having given undue profit to its shareholders. A yield of under 5 per cent. with the stock at 260, in view of the rise in the cost of living over a long period cannot be said to be excessive. I cannot think anyone would like to see the shareholders of the Bank of England prejudiced. As matters are now, when the £260,000,000 is fixed, securities to cover that amount are transferred from the Government to the issue department of the Bank of England. As far as the banking department is concerned, the profit-making side of the Bank, it has no effect whatever. The issue department goes to the Treasury for the return of the securities that were deposited. What is going to be the case if the £260,000,000 has to meet a sudden and temporary emergency? The fiduciary issue has to be increased, say, to £275,000,000, and an extra £15,000,000 of securities has to be found, not by the Government but by the Bank of England. It has to be transferred from the banking department. into the issue department. I have no doubt when the emergency is over and the rush has died down the securities are replaced in the banking department by notes, but as long as the Treasury
minute is in existence, so long as the issue is increased, the issue department has lost £15,000,000 of profit-earning securities and has to replace it by £15,000,000 of notes, which as far as profit making is concerned are dead, and the profits on those securities goes to the Treasury.
If that is the case, it puts the governor and the directors in a difficult position. We all agree that those in charge of an institution of this national character should he able more or less to ignore the interests of the shareholders. The shareholders, after all, look on it, as a more or less fixed interest-bearing security and they do not expect to get more than the yield they do get, but it is putting those in control in a very difficult position if they have to choose between going to the Treasury and asking them to increase the note issue, knowing that that is going to cause perhaps grave loss to their shareholders, or else by some other means to reduce the demand on the note issue, means which may be most injurious to the national interest. This is a question of very great importance, and even with the security provided in Clause 8 the Government would be unwise to take this sum of £260,000,000 unless they can assure the -Committee they regard it as a sum that is unlikely to be exceeded and not as a sum which may probably be exceeded on many occasions and that recourse will be had frequently to the procedure under Clause 8.

6.0 p.m.

Mr. GILLETT: I do not think the hon. Member's fears will be justified in connection with the line of argument he has taken. As far as I can understand his criticism in regard to the injury to shareholders, he was only referring to an emergency power and not to the actual Amendment before the Committee. I gather the argument was that if the Bank of England had to ask for permission to issue a larger number of notes than the £260,000,000, when that had been granted they would have to provide security as cover, with which I should agree. Then he suggested that the Bank of England would take some of the securities it now holds and place them as cover against the notes issued. As a matter of fact, I do not think that that is what the procedure will be. At any rate, it
need not be the procedure, because the hon. Gentleman will see that one of the problems that the Bank would have before it would be that if they wanted more notes it would have to get them into circulation. Therefore, the whole transaction that would take place would be, that you would buy with the notes you wanted to put into circulation, the stocks you wanted to act as cover. Actually, in that way, without touching the holding of stocks, it would be possible to get the cover required. I do not know whether my argument satisfies the hon. Member. I think there is one conclusive argument which would satisfy him, and that is a provision further on in the Bill. That was the point at which the Chairman suggested that the argument the hon. Member was addressing to the Committee would be more appropriate, where the matter is entirely set at rest, because it says that the profits are to be handed over to the Government after all expenses have been paid by the Bank. Supposing the hon. Member's argument had been correct—I do not think it was—and that this had involved any expenditure to the Bank, it would have been taken from the profits which ultimately go to the nation. I see no danger, either in our proposal or in the proposal of the Government, of the shareholders of the Bank suffering in any way.
Turning to the actual proposal before the Committee at the present time, I myself did not quite grasp at first, when this Bill was brought forward, the act that we were really making a very important change with regard to the currency note issue. The currency note issue has been a varying figure, but we have now to consider that that with which we are going to deal is a fixed amount. With regard to the issuing department of the Bank of England, we now have a figure which amounts to about £19,000,000 odd, and I understand that what is going to happen after this change has taken place is, that the item which amounts to £19,700,000 will disappear and be replaced by a figure of £260,000,000. The Financial Secretary agrees? Our proposal is, that instead £260,000,000 the figure should be increased to £275,000,000. This is based on three conditions. The first is that we fear that the ordinary demands of trade—for instance, at Christmas and at holiday times, when there is an extra demand,
especially on the part of the working class, for £1 and 10s. notes—would be so large that the present supply would be exhausted. I am not sure of the figure that the right hon. Gentleman gave as being his estimate of the actual figure at the present time, but the "Economist" stated that it was £258,000,000 on the 2nd May.

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I really gave a figure a little higher than that. I said there was 11,250,000 in hand on the maximum.

Mr. GILLETT: What has not been mentioned this afternoon is the fact that the Government are reckoning upon an extra £6,000,000 being available from the Irish Free State for instituting their new system of notes. So that the Government are really counting upon a margin of from £6,000,000 to £8,000,000 being available. Our view is, on the first question with regard to the holidays and Christmas demands of trade, that the Bank will be hard pressed to provide the necessary amount of notes. The figures with which the great banks deal are really very large. Our fear is that the Bank of England will not care to go to the Government in times like that., and that therefore, in order to avoid going to the Government, they will, as they see their reserves diminishing, put up the bank rate at a time when otherwise this would not be done. My regret is, that in adopting this fixed system the Bank of England note issue will differ very much from the note issues of the banks of the rest of the world.
I would sooner have seen the Bank of England given powers gradually to increase the sum than have adopted the proposal which we are compelled to make to-day on account of the way the Bill has been formulated. I would sooner give the Bank of England permission to increase the issue from £260,000,000 to 1275,000,000 just when they desired to do so, provided, as I suggested the other day, that it was backed by some short term security in the nature of bills. It is impossible to put down Amendments to that effect. We can only really increase the figure decided upon to-day by backing every note with gold and that is the fundamental difference between us and the banking systems in other parts of
the world. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman in the answer he gave to us in regard to the powers of the Government to allow the Bank to issue a larger number of notes in an emergency. We have bad mention made of what might happen supposing France took away £10,000,000 or £30,000,000 in gold, and he has suggested that in a ease of that kind the powers that the Government are granting would be sufficient. I am prepared to agree that powers of that kind obviously would have to be given to meet such an emergency.
Our principal objection to the figure that has been fixed and to the margin being so small is that we ourselves are hoping to see an expansion of trade as years go by. We are fully convinced that if you have an expansion of credit and a general improvement in trade, possibly even a rise in prices, and the figure remains as it is at the present time, if you reduce the amount of your banknotes to the volume of trade, it will be another kind of deflation. If you increase the amount of notes you will have inflation; if you stand still when the other standards are altering, and you get out of touch with those standards, you will have deflation. This is the reason why we are so strongly opposed to the rigid lines upon which the Bill is drawn. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman may get up and suggest that to place the figure at £275,000,000 instead of at £260,000,000 is inflation. I would like to suggest to him that if the Bank of England—supposing the House decided upon this sum—felt that it was likely to lead to a currency inflation, it would be quite easy, by liquidating stocks, to reduce for the time being the amount of credit in the country. In that way it would be possible to counteract for the moment any immediate inflation, and it would leave the elasticity asked for. That is the vital principle which divides us from the Government. I do not think that it can be said that our proposal necessarily involves inflation because of the way the Bank of England manages the money market at the present time. It has at the present time means of counteracting any monetary danger from inflation, and if trade expanded, as we hope it will, it could easily pursue that course. In that way we should have a system not so rigid and better adapted to the needs of our times.

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: This is a very important Amendment, very important indeed. It really does go to the heart of the Bill. The Government had to determine what figure they would put in the Bill as the limit of the fiduciary circulation, and they had to make the best review they could and take the best advice they could on that subject, and they fixed £260,000,000. This Amendment suggests that there is no elbow room in £260,000,000, and that £275,000,000 would be a hotter figure. The particular reason given for the choice of £275,000,000 as against £270,000,000, £280,000,000 or £300,000,000, was that, apparently, it was thought that £260,000,000 was too rigid and that £275,000,000 might be a better shot, to put it no higher than that. The actual figures upon which we relied for guidance I gave the other day. They appear not to have been entirely understood, and I will re-state them shortly. The present maximum, that is the maximum of currency notes to be issued as now fixed in accordance with the Cunliffe Committee's advice at £260,000,000, will show a margin of £1,250,000 over the highest. figure for the year before last. Over the notes in issue at this moment there is a margin of very nearly £9,000,000. Those figures are net figures, after deducting the £6,000,000 of Irish Free State notes which we expect to conic in later. So we have a margin of £9,000,000 in the £260,000,000 over the present note issue, a margin of £1,250,000 over the highest for the year before last.
As hon. Members will remember, the fiduciary note issue has been contracting year after year, although very much less rapidly later. It has been contracting year after year from the time when the highest point was reached some years ago. I would myself agree that that margin would not be safe. I need not go as far as the hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. Gillett), for even if £275,000,000 were fixed, I understood him to say that he still wanted power to extend that. I think it will be unsafe to fix any figure as the fiduciary note issue without some power under some circumstances to expand, because no one could really pretend to prophesy what the future of the currency is going to be. The unknown with regard to gold itself, the demands upon gold, the possibility of a great expansion of trade here, of great alterations in the
lives of the people requiring a great deal more currency—all these are possibilities we must provide for and protect the fiduciary limit against. That we are going to do.
The hon. Member for Westmorland (Mr. Stanley) in a most interesting speech for which, certainly, he had no need to apologise, asked me two questions. His first question was: is the maximum which has been fixed a reliable maximum, er has there been some manipulation which is preventing it from going still higher? My answer is, none on the part of the Government, and none on the part of the Bank of England. I believe it is true that before Christmas a rather unusual number of notes came from circulation back to the Bank of England, but to what extent that occurred or how that has affected the maximum, if at all, I cannot say. I do not think, but have very little information on this point, that that is likely to affect the issue to any considerable extent. The second question was this: Would there not be hesitancy on the part of the Bank of England to put into operation Clause 8 and to ask for an increase of the fiduciary circulation? If they did so, would that not interfere with their profits and would it not be done at the expense of their shareholders Up to a point, there would be an interference with the earning capacity of the bank, but not very great.
Let us consider in what circumstances a demand for an increase of the fiduciary issue would be made. It would be because the bank reserve was unduly reduced, that of their assets too much were in the form of interest-bearing securities, and too little in the form of notes. It would be because there was too little in the form of notes that they would ask for an increase of the fiduciary circulation, so that they could make up a larger reserve. That would be at a time when their interest-bearing securities were too great, and although it would increase the reserve which is not in interest-earning securities yet, on the whole, I think it ought not to act as a deterrent, because it would only come at a time when the proportion was all wrong and when the action taken was righting the proportion, and so strengthening their position and the whole financial position of the bank. Therefore, J do not think there is likely to be any check
upon the action of the bank, through, shall we say; selfish motives.
If this Amendment were to be accepted and we were to substitute 1275,000,000 for £260,000,000, we should be in this position that we should have immediately an excessive fiduciary issue. If the provision for the £260,000,000 were now in force it would already be £9,000,000 in excess of the notes at present in issue, and if you add £15,000,000 to that, you acid £15,000,000 to the reserve of the Bank of England. I do not want to accuse any hon. Member opposite of being an inflationist, but that increase by £15,000,000 of the reserve of the Bank of England would, undoubtedly, relax credit unless special measures were taken by the Bank of England to avoid it, which would mean that the Bank of England would have to sell, say, 15,000,000 of securities which were earning money and take in exchange £15,000,000 worth of notes on which they would not be earning money. That is a reverse process to the one which my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland mentioned. Whereas I do not think my hon. Friend's fear is well founded, I do say that it is not right for us to put upon the Bank of England a charge which would amount to something like £600,000 a year, by the addition of the 115,000,000 to the fiduciary issue, unless you are going to run the risk of inflation, which the hon. Member for Finsbury denies is his intention.

Mr. G I LLETT: Supposing it had that effect, could not the bank put it amongst their charges?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I should have thought not. It is rather in the nature of a loss of profit than a cost. I will consider the point as I am not sure about it, but I think it would be a loss of profit, or of possible profit, than an actual cost.

Mr. STANLEY: In that case, would it not be covered by Clause 5? If we increase the £260,000,000 to £275,000,000 in Clause 2, it would automatically increase the amount of the securities which the Government have to hand over to the Bank of England when the note issue is transferred.

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: It would undoubtedly, if we did it now. The only other way of preventing that increase
being the basis of an inflation would be that when they found it excessive the Bank should come to the Treasury and say: "Reduce it again. Although you have a maximum of £275,000,000 in your Bill, we do not want it at this moment. Use Clause 2 to reduce it to £260,000,000." That would be a method of temporarily curing the excessive fiduciary issue which this Amendment would bring about. I suggest to hon. Members that the figure of £260,000,000 is the best figure that the experts could give us. It is a figure which gives a considerable margin on existing issues, and that, along with Clause 8, does provide all the means that are required for giving elasticity to meet special emergencies. I do not pretend that it would meet the emergency which was suggested by the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Lees-Smith), that France and other foreign nations might have from £200,000,000 to £300,000,000 deposited in this country and that they might choose to demand back a large proportion of their deposits. I do not suggest that Clause 8 would be sufficient in all cases to deal with that situation, nor would the Amendment. An Amendment adding £15,000,000 to the fiduciary issue would go but a very small way should a demand eventuate in the way he suggested. I maintain that we have taken the best advice we could, that the figure of £260,000,000, coupled with the powers under Clause 8, is a safe figure, and that we can rely upon the Bank of England and upon the Treasury to utilise the powers of alteration of that figure, should the future prove an alteration to be necessary.

Mr. RUNCIMAN: The Amendment which we are discussing is one of very great importance. I do not think that it in any way strikes at the root principle of the Bill, but it has within it two important considerations. The first consideration is that we should not be bound down too rigidly to one figure. The Amendment is that the word "may" shall be substituted for the word "shall." Therefore, to increase the limit as suggested in the Amendment to £275,000,000 is not actually to fix a limit. It does not mean that, of necessity, you must have the whole issue of £275,000,000 now. I would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he has taken into account two facts which seem to me to be of considerable importance. The first is the
undesirability of having to come to the House too frequently laying minutes for an alteration in the limit. I can imagine nothing being more disturbing than that, say, every six months or every twelve months, the Treasury and the Bank having arrived at an agreement, a Minute should have to be laid for an increase or a decrease. Is it not better to have a certain amount of elasticity? I do not elaborate the point now because I have no doubt my right hon. Friend would like to discuss the point in greater detail with his technical advisers before we come to the Report stage, if not now.
The further point is one upon which, no doubt, he will be able to give me information. It relates to the seasonal fluctuations. The seasonal fluctuations are sometimes of great volume. It depends very largely upon what happens within the board roams of the great banks. If what are called the big five and the co-operative bank were to decide to make abnormal payments of notes into the Bank of England they would not by that increase or decrease their reserves. Their reserves would remain exactly the same. For the purpose of reserves it makes no difference whether the notes are held in their own safes or put into the Bank of England, which is their bank, the bank for the whole lot. Is it not the case that these fluctuations have been kept within very narrow limits by the restraint and discretion of the great general managers and boards? Suppose those demands were to assume rather larger dimensions. Would not that entirely upset the limit?
Would not a rigid limit of £260,000,000 be upset if very much larger demands were made in the coming Christmas than were made last Christmas '? Would not that entirely destroy the virtue of the limit of £260,000,000? As far as I can see, no experts in the banking world or outside can say what will happen in Christmas week next.
It is impossible to look ahead so accurately as to say that £260,000,000 is the right figure and that £275,000,000 is the wrong figure. The right hon. Gentleman did not address himself to the details of these seasonal requirements, but these seasonal requirements can be easily extended or contracted by the policy of the joint stock banks.
£260,000,000 may prove to be too low and may bring about the very risk which we want to avoid, of too many applications being made to the Treasury and resort having to be made too often to this House to alter the limit. In these circumstances; is not there very much to be said for making the limit elastic? If you are going to make it elastic, let it be within seine reasonable figure. If the figure of £275,000,000 is not the right figure, say, £280,000,000, or £270,000,000, but to cut it so fine as to leave only a margin of £1,500,000 above the maximum of last year is, it appears to me, to be taking steps which must inevitably lead to further artificial contraction of the use of the currency, and must, in effect, be a kind of deflatory process. May I ask that this point should be reconsidered? It is not a matter of principle. The Government may possibly decide between now and the Report stage that they would prefer something more elastic than the original proposal. Nor is this a matter of mere pedantry, nor is it nor has it taken anything like a party form, although there are a great many people outside who have been considering this matter with very great care who regard the rigid limit of £260,000,000 with some apprehension. I would ask the Government not to be too rigid in regard to this matter, seeing that they are receiving such general support on their main project.

Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE: The Secretary of State for War has given excellent reasons for our not accepting the rigid figure of £275,000,000, although he evidently omitted to note that, in fact, the Amendment does not fix that figure but merely makes it an optional one. He gave us, however, almost equally good reasons I thought for not fixing the figure at £260,000,000. I do hope most earnestly that the Government will give an undertaking to reconsider this matter and to fix some figure which is not so rigid as the one laid down in Clause 2, but one-which will allow of that considerable expansion in trade to which we all look forward and hope for in the near future-It is perfectly true to say that to lay down the figure of £275,000,000 as the limit might involve a certain loss, which the Secretary of State for War has estimated at £600,000, but to my mind the whole question is whether in fixing the present limit of £260,000,000, or
£275,000,000, the advisers of the Government have sufficiently considered what is likely to be in front of us in the near future.
I would remind my right hon. Friend that in 1919, when the Cunliffe Committee issued its Report—the recommendations of which are probably in general a matter of agreement in all parts of the House—the results of the action taken upon that Report were perhaps somewhat different from those which were expected. Let the Committee observe what 'happened. The Cunliffe Committee issued its Report and the Treasury Minute on that Report was dated 15th December, but by April following we had a Bank rate of 7 per cent., an immense slump in trade, and while Government securities rushed up, filling no doubt the coffers of the banks, the general result was undoubtedly reacting adversely on the large manufacturing trades of the country by restricting their advances. I am not going to suggest that this result was entirely due to the Committee's Report and the action of the Government, but to-day in fixing the limit of £260,000,000 are not the Government as it were laying it down that we are going to have a period of unemployment ahead of us instead of considering that it is possible—and many of us hope and believe it is—that in the next year or two most of the million unemployed will be fully or partly employed. With g real expansion of trade we might find that this figure in Clause 2 is totally and utterly inadequate; we might find that the figure of £275,000,000 is totally inadequate, and as by laying down this rigid figure of £260,000,000 we are making it a difficult and an unusual step on the part of the Bank of England to come forward from time to time and ask the Government to change it. You thus arrive at a stage where possibly industry is seriously handicapped and the great manufacturing concerns would find extreme difficulty in financing their operations.
I was much struck by a phrase used by the right hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Snowden) on the Second Reading of the Bill. I know he did not claim it as original any more than I do, but it is one which we should remember, and it is this, that money should not be the master but the servant of industry. It is unfortunately too often our master. As I
have said, under the present proposals it will be extremely difficult to induce the Bank of England to come forward and ask for powers under Clause 8. They will only do so in exceptional circumstances as the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War has in fact admitted will be the procedure, and the point I want to emphasise is that this or some other figure in excess of £260,000,000 may not be required only in order to meet exceptional circumstances but in order to meet what we hope may be quite ordinary circumstances. Therefore, I do hope the Government will see that while there may be disadvantages in accepting the figure of £275,000,000, they will between now and Report stage consider the matter again with their advisers and, if possible, arrive at some method which will give real elasticity and enable the currency of the country to be suited to the needs of our great manufacturing industries, and I hope to an ever increasing standard of living.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I hope the Government will show a somewhat conciliatory spirit to this Amendment in view of the fact that it has been supported from all sides of the Committee and that there has not been a single supporter of the Government who has defended the Clause as it stands. In addition to what has been said inside this House I was very pleased to find that the Conservative paper in my own constituency published a leading article the other day in these words:
We do not often find ourselves agreeing with Mr. Pethick-Lawrence, but we certainly do on this occasion share his view that the Bill will limit the growth of currency below what will be required in order to finance trade. The limit of the fiduciary issue of the new £1 and 10s. Bank of England notes is put at £260,000,000. That, as Mr. Pethick-Lawrence points out, may cover immediate requirement, but provides no surplus for dealing with a revival of trade and a reduction of unemployment.
That is what the Conservative paper in my own constituency says, and I think it is entitled to some respect by the Government and hon. Members opposite. I want to emphasise two points in answer to the speech of the Secretary of State for War. One point has already been made by the right hon. Member for West Swansea (Mr. Runciman) and the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Wardlaw-Milne). We deliberately put in this word
"may" instead of the word "shall," and coupled it with the Amendment of the £275,000,000, precisely to meet the point which the right hon. Gentleman made. We recognise clearly that if we did not make the former Amendment we should be charged with inflation tendencies to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, but we cannot be charged with those tendencies in view of the earlier Amendment, which we intend to press to a division unless the Government indicate their readiness to meet us. The right hon. Gentleman went a very long way in acknowledging the grounds for our Amendment. He admitted that £260,000,000 might well prove inadequate but he defended the Bill on the lines that all that was necessary was provided for in Clause 8.
It would obviously be out of order for me to discuss now in any detail the procedure involved in Clause 8, but in view of what the right hon. Gentleman has said I am entitled to point this out, that the Bank of England in going to the Treasury and asking for an increase of the fiduciary issue under Clause 8 will be confessing the weakness of its position and, therefore, I think me may quite properly take it that the Bank of England will go a long way before it avails itself of the procedure in Clause 8. That would probably involve the raising of the rate of discount, or the adoption of other means by which credit may be curtailed. In these circumstances we suggest that there is a great deal of difference between accepting the principle of this Amendment and the procedure involved in Clause 8. If the procedure in this Amendment is accepted in principle it will mean that the Bank of England will have a, free hand to enlarge the issue up to this further limit of £275,000,000 as and when it may be required. If, however, the procedure in Clause 8 appears by itself the Bank will feel that that is in the nature of a crisis, and it will avoid that by means which may be deleterious to industry and bad for employment.
There are one or two other points on the Amendment which I desire the Committee to consider. It seems to me that we are locking up a great deal of unnecessary gold under the present proposal. The gold of the country in the
1928 Bank Notes Bill. 1286 past has been required for two purposes—to meet the internal demand for gold and to meet the external demand for gold. Under this Bill, and in accordance with our procedure since 1914, the internal demand for gold has disappeared, and the idea that we have to lock up this large amount of gold entirely for external purposes is a mistake. The grounds for increasing this figure are therefore very strong. We have to justify ourselves not nationally but internationally in this matter, and I suggest that in the form in which it appears we are being bad internationalists because we are in effect hoarding gold unnecessarily. In that connection I should like to read an extract from the current number of the "Statist." Hon. Members will find it on page 815:
Had the fiduciary circulation been fixed higher, say at £275,000,000"—
the figure in our Amendment was chosen before the issue of this number—
the Bill would have lost none of its present qualities and it would at least have given proof of a helpful attitude in the matter of international control of gold values.
That is the point in regard to the international situation which I am trying to make; that if we take and lock up this large amount of gold other countries will follow suit and it, will have an exceedingly bad effect. The example we are now setting is a bad one. In conclusion I feel that there has been in the mind of a great many people, and particularly in the mind of the Bank of England, a fatalistic belief in the inevitability of a steady appreciation of gold and it appears to underlie this Bill. It underlies the failure to provide a sufficient margin in this Clause. As against that I believe I am really trying to safeguard British industry; and I look for support from hon. Members opposite in an effort to apply our method of safeguarding—and I think it is their method, too, in a great many cases—British industries as against the financial superstition which is working towards deflation. In view of the feeling in all parts of the House I hope the Government will meet us in this matter so that this rigid limit of £260,000,000 will no longer be contained in the Bill.

Sir HILTON YOUNG: This is a matter for practical consideration and one on which one is not inclined to dogmatise. I come to the question with an open mind, anxious to hear what the arguments are. After hearing them I do not find myself convinced by the arguments in favour of the immediate extension of the fiduciary issue. It appears that the ruling consideration is this: that the figure of £260,000,000 conforms to a state of affairs which has now existed with some stability for at least a couple of years. An arrangement which corresponds to that figure of £260,000,000 has been found adequate for the needs of the country for a considerable period, and there is no immediate reason to suppose that it will not be so as far as the future is foreseeable for a reasonable period. Suppose you were to make an immediate extension to £275,000,000, either it would be immediately used or it would not. If it was immediately used, I believe that the Secretary of State for War is right, and it would have a deflationary tendency which would be undesirable. If it were not used, what would be the good of doing it? It would only induce the belief that there was going to be an immediate inflationary extension of credit, which would be unwholesome.
What the Amendment asks us to do is that we should, by a special and abnormal form of procedure, anticipate the procedure which is provided for by Clause 8. I do not think that would be a wise thing to do. In the first place, it is not immediately necessary. The figure of £260,000,000 is adequate for the immediate future. Secondly, it would be undesirable for a reason that is most important. It is this: that the workability of the Bill is going to depend on Clause 8 being used as a practical and living provision and not merely as a power to be used in cases of grave and exceptional crisis. It is undesirable that we should supplant the procedure under Clause 8 by any anticipation of it, any special procedure, decided upon by this Committee. It would be wise to leave the next step in the expansion of the fiduciary issue to be taken under Clause 8 in order to bring that Clause into use and cause it to be regarded as a normal and necessary procedure in the
machinery of our currency control. For these reasons I believe we should support the figure of £260,000,000.

Mr. W. BAKER: I believe the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Norwich (Sir H. Young) has brought us to the point where the issue between the two groups can be clearly seen. He holds the view that you can fix a limit to this issue with advantage to the nation. I, on the other hand, believe with the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. WardlawMilne) that this Bill is the final step in the policy of deflation which has been consistently pursued since 1919.

Mr. WARDLAW - MILNE: I did not say that. I have not accused this or any other Government of pursuing a policy of deflation.

Mr. W. BAKER: In my view, there has been a consistent policy of deflation and while the Government may quite sincerely deny responsibility for many unfortunate happenings in the intervening period, there is a very strong opinion on this side of the Committee that the policy pursued in respect of deflation was the fundamental cause of the trouble. I want to say a few words with regard to the endeavour to fix this figure at the £260,000,000 point. If I understood the Financial Secretary aright, he said, that the maximum issue last year was 264.60 millions.

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Arthur Michael Samuel) indicated dissent.

Mr. BAKER: I accept the correction. I should have said that the total available currency was 264.69 millions. I am told, although I have no personal knowledge of it, that on 22nd December last the corresponding figure was 263 millions. We get the complication of the Irish note issue and that figure is estimated at £6,000,000. Is it too much to suggest that that is a wrong estimate and does not give us that margin suggested by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War? With regard to this £260,000,000, we have had quoted the opinion of Mr. Keynes. To the opinion of Mr. Keynes may be added the opinion of the Midland Bank. The Midland Bank has publicly expressed the same point of view as that attributed to Mr. Keynes, namely, that the figure should be
£300,000,000. What strengthens my argument here this afternoon is that a great organ of public opinion which speaks for the Government takes our point of view. I listened carefully to the Second Reading Debate and I was struck by the fact that this Bill was presented as though general agreement existed on it, except, perhaps, for the opinion of my hon. Friend the Member for West Leicester (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence). But, as far as I can understand, economists and bankers of the highest standing take a view contrary to the view of the Government on this matter. The "Times" newspaper, whatever else it may be, is not sympathetic to the Labour party, or, as it is pleased to term it, the Socialist party. The "Times" has definitely declared against the Government on this point. On the 14th April this year, not in a letter from a correspondent, but in an official pronouncement in the City columns, the "Times" states:
There are obvious objections to fixing once for all a country's requirements of fiduciary currency. The various economic elements are always changing.… It is therefore unscientific to make inelastic a monetary element which ought to adjust itself automatically to changes in the dimensions of the economic elements.

Sir L. WORTHINGTON - EVANS: Hear, hear!

Mr. BAKER: The right hon. Gentleman appears to agree, and if he agrees with the point of view expressed by the "Times" then this is a matter on which the Committee might be unanimous. It is important instead of giving a fixed total of currency that you should endeavour, following as I imagine the thought which was very ably expressed at Genoa, to find the means whereby your supplies of gold can be economised to the greatest possible extent and, in addition, that you should find a standard whereby your currency would automatically be related to the economic needs of the moment. I am strongly of opinion that the Government have made a mistake with regard to the fixing of a limit and with regard to the figure too. Again, I am reinforced by the City Correspondent of the "Times" who says:
The supply of legal tender should he adequate to meet the requirements of internal payments. These requirements necessarily vary, and it would therefore appear that a more scientific basis for regulating the fiduciary issue might be an index com-
posed of population production and price figures.
That doctrine has been widely taught in economic circles for a considerable time and it was a surprising and pleasing revelation to me to find the "Times" taking that view. Having regard to the endorsement of that policy by the "Times" I respectfully submit to the right hon. Gentleman that there is a case for reconsideration. There is a case for going over the whole of this question again, to see whether even at this late hour it might not be well to alter the plan, and to see whether the inquiry for which we have been pressing would not be preferable to reaching a decision before that inquiry has been held. As a matter of fact, as the hon. Member for West Leicester has said, changes in the supply of money are quite as important as changes in the supply of goods and between 1913 and 1919 changes in prices bore a direct and continuous relation to the amount of money in circulation. It is because I believe that the amount of money in circulation has a direct effect upon prices that I regard the decision which we are to give to-day as of tremendous importance and I would earnestly appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to give this matter very careful attention, with a view to the appeal which has been made from various parts of the Committee, being further considered.

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I want to remind the Committee of what is the Amendment on which they are asked to vote. I hope we are going to a Division very soon upon the first Amendment which has now been debated at some length. The Debate has been one of great interest and I am sure has been very useful indeed. But the actual Amendment on which we are asked to divide is that "may" shall be substituted for "Shall" and subsequently another Division is to be taken on the question of whether "£275,000,000" should be substituted for "£265,000,000." The actual effect of the two Amendments together would be to provide that there "might" be a fiduciary issue of £275,000,000 and that the Bank would have complete and absolute discretion, without the assent of the Treasury or the Government, to reduce that from £275,000,000 to any figure they liked and to bring about just the sort of deflation about which hon. Gentlemen
opposite express such fears. It is an utterly impracticable Amendment upon which, however, we have had an interesting Debate.

Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE: Will not my right hon. Friend state the Government's intentions on properly drawn Amendments?

Captain MACMILLAN: The right hon. Gentleman has called the attention of the Committee to the actual legal effect of this first Amendment upon which we are about to vote, but he will agree that this Debate has been of a kind to raise general questions. Although it is the case that if the Amendments were accepted as they stand they would have the effect which he describes in connection with any further change in the Bill, yet it is also true that a great number of questions may be raised on an Amendment of this kind in the Committee stage, and it is proper that they should be raised in that way and if they prove acceptable to the Government at some further stage there is no difficulty in meeting any technical objections which may follow from accepting them. It is quite possible to lay down that there shall be an issue of a certain amount, and still to leave in the hands of the Bank a certain power of increasing the issue to a further maximum.
7.0 p.m.
I feel reluctant to intervene on such a difficult subject but I gathered that there were, roughly, two plans and that the difference between them was not so much one of principle as one of procedure. One of the plans is that the Bank of England should be required to make an issue of £260,000,000. If they wish to reduce that issue they operate under Subsection (2) of this Clause. If they wish to increase that issue they operate under Clause 8 and the whole point was, as stated by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Norwich (Sir H. Young), whether this method of Clause 8 is to be the normal method, one that can be resorted to without raising public fears and causing a great deal of public discussion, or whether it is to be preserved for exceptional cases and emergencies. If it is to be preserved for emergencies it. seems to me there is a great deal of danger in relying solely on Clause 8. I should have thought that the Bank would
have been reluctant to make use of these powers, in view of all the publicity and fears of disturbing the market which might follow. I should have thought there was a good deal to be said for a system which gave a greater measure of elasticity to the Bank in order that it might be able to operate by normal methods rather than to make use of a procedure, which, as it is framed, seems rather intended to meet emergencies than to be a normal method of operation. That is really the only question we are discussing, and I hope it may be possible for the Government to consider which of the two procedures indicated in the Debate is likely to be the more useful and in the long run more valuable. The right hon. Member for Norwich referred to the Amendment as if the fiduciary issue was to be immediately raised to £275,000,000. Of course, as the Amendment is framed, it gives a discretion to the Bank, but, as I understand it, it is simply a difference in procedure. The right hon. Member for Norwich seemed rather uncertain as to that, and thought that there would be difficulties, but he seemed to wish the method of Clause 8 to be regarded as the normal method. I cannot help feeling that the Bank would be very unwilling to operate under Clause 8. The result may be that there may be on occasions periods when we shall be running a risk of other methods being used, and these may have unduly deflationary effects, with bad results upon industry as a whole. I hope that the Government will be prepared to consider this question and to see whether it may not be possible, without raising the difficulties which the right hon. Member the Minister for War has pointed out, to frame a Clause which would give this extra power to the Bank without raising the other objections to which he called attention.

Mr. WALLHEAD: I sincerely hope that we on the Labour Benches are not to be allowed to go into the Lobby alone in support of the "Times," and that we may expect some help from the other side. It is a curious thing that on this occasion the "Times" should take the view that it does with regard to this question. In these matters one has to tread carefully and in the temple of the god of gold speak with bated breath. I am
in favour of the Amendment because I hope to see the fiduciary issue made as big as possible. To speak of anything that appears to be inflation is to call on ones head the condign condemnation of all the so-called experts, but one has to go by experience, and the experience of the working classes is that, from the moment when currency began to be curtailed, their conditions began to get worse. The hon. Gentlemen on the other side may say what they will about deflation, but when currency was plentiful the working classes were well off, well clothed, well fed and with reasonable access to some of the things that make life better. The moment deflation began and our policy began to be the cutting down of the vehicle by which consumption is possible, we had curtailment of purchasing power, cutting down of wages, vast increases in unemployment, bankrupticies—particularly among the small traders—and we have never recovered from the day deflation began until now.
I may be a heretic, a Philistine, utterly wrong, but, with all due deference to those who speak with a greater scientific knowledge, after all the attempts we have made in this country to deal with this problem of unemployment, I have been driven to the conclusion that the one thing that is essential in this country now is to put in the hands of the people the means whereby they can begin to purchase goods. Whatever Government tackles this problem, whether Conservative or Socialist, the thing they will have to deal with is the currency. They will have to inflate in ratio to the producing power of the country. Does it not seem strange that we are here squabbling about whether we shall have £15,000,000 of notes more or less in circulation when we are discussing a Budget in which we are dealing with 2800,000,000, or while we are talking about annual production in terms of £3,000,000,000 or £4,000,000,000? We ought to have a currency fixed by experts in direct ratio to the annual production of wealth, and our currency ought to be based upon the measure of the consuming power of our people, so as to give them consuming power over the wealth they create annually. It may be unscientific, but it appears to me thoroughly rational and sensible.
I notice that, when the gold standard was restored in 1925, it was predicted that it would bring about a further depression in the condition of our people. But I see that in 1924, before the gold standard was restored, the issue of Bank of England notes was roughly £26,000,000, but, immediately the gold standard was restored, the Bank of England issue of notes went up to £56,000,000. Why was that done? Was it done to check the effect of the restoration of the gold standard? Why was it done at that particular moment? Is it a fact that there had been too much deflation and that £30,000,000 more purchasing power in currency was required by the State? What was the precise reason for it? Was it based on gold? Had the Bank of England got the gold on which they issued those notes? Presumably they had. I say that the people of England might just as well have their currency based on actual goods produced, on cloth and calico, corn and flour, as on gold. If they Lye stores of corn and clothing on which currency is based, it will be far better for the people of my constituency than the Bank of England notes, based on boxes full of gold.
The Bank of England gold reserve has been relatively small. The American gold reserve has been enormous. They have three parts of the world's gold supply, but it does not stop an unemployment problem of between 4,000,000 and 6,000,000 people at this moment. It does not stop misery in the Southern States of America, or a gold strike in North Virginia, or a strike in the textile trades there, where thousands of people are striking now because of bad conditions. Gold in the vaults of banks does not bring prosperity. They have five times as much as we have, yet they are as badly off as we are, as far as some of their people are concerned. It all shows the weakness of capitalist methods and organisation. It shows that there is a weakness somewhere, that there ought to be some means whereby the plenty we can produce can be translated into terms of wealth and life for the whole mass of the people. Until that is done, all the talk about gold and currency leaves me cold. You talk very learnedly about your inflation and deflation. What does it matter to the man who does not know where his breakfast is 17,o come from? There are millions of such men. Last
night we were pleading for a milk meal for the children of this country in South Wales, yet this country cannot afford to give more than one milk meal a day—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Captain FitzRoy): That is not relevant on this Amendment.

Mr. WALLHEAD: I was pointing out that we were discussing questions of currency which mean little or nothing to the people I have mentioned. I was asking that the Government should deal with currency from a rational point of view and not from the scientific point of view that has brought civilisation almost to ruin.

Sir FRANK MEYER: I do not know whether the hon. and right hon. Gentlemen on the Front Bench opposite will be glad of the intervention which has taken place, as they have assured the House that they are not inflationists.

Mr. WALLHEAD: I am not committing them; they probably agree with you more than with me.

Sir F. MEYER: The hon. Gentleman might look to Germany instead of America, because there they employed the printing press as he has been suggesting—

Mr. WALLHEAD: I did not mention the printing press. I said that we should have a currency based on the wealth of production. That is not inflation. I should call it inflation if currency exceeded the ratio to annual production.

Sir F. MEYER: I shall not dispute with the hon. Gentleman what inflation means. We can both look it up in the dictionary and then form our own con-elusions. It seems to me that the Mover and Seconder of this Amendment, and those who are going to support it from the benches opposite, are somewhat on the horns of a dilemma. If they are in favour of a fixed limit to the fiduciary issue, are they in favour of £275,000,000 or 2260,000,000? If they are, then they are pro tauto inflationists, because the figures given to the House on the previous occasion show that our present requirements are satisfied by £260,000,000. Therefore, if there is to be a fixed sum of £275,000,000, then for the moment they are inflationists. If, on the other hand, they do not require such a fixed maxi-
mum—and from the form of their Amendment which would substitute "may" for "Shall" that seems likely—then all that they are doing by this Amendment is taking out of the power of the Treasury, subject to the approval of this House, the right to increase this maximum, and giving it to the institution which I have heard so severely criticised in the past, the Bank of England. It is made optional. They are merely saying that the Bank of England is to be subject to a maximum of £275,000,000, and they are also giving power to lower it, instead of saying, as in the present Bill say, that this is a fixed maximum and that the Treasury, with the approval of the House, can raise that maximum. It seems to me that we ought to know from the party opposite on which of these two horns they are going to be impaled. Are they going to fix the maximum at £275,000,000, or are they willing to give the Bank power, which they have under the present Bill, of increasing the amount over a certain maximum?

Mr. DALTON: I do not propose to spend many minutes in prolonging this discussion, but in view of the speeches which have been made in different parts of the House I think it would not be asking too much that we should at any rate get some understanding that this matter will be reconsidered. After all, there has not been unanimous support for the figure of £260,000,000 from the supporters of the present Government. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Norwich (Sir H. Young) defended the figure of £260,000,000 on the ground that it corresponded with the figure for the last two years. It is just for that reason that we are asking for a higher figure to be substituted, because we believe that if trade revives this figure of £260,000,000 will prove to be much too low to permit of expansion. In reply to the hon. Member who has just spoken, I do not think the dilemma which he suggests in reality exists, because if our Amendment is accepted, or if it is carried, it still leaves power under Clause 8 for the limit of £275,000,000 to be further exceeded, if the conditions of trade justify it, by the Treasury's consent on the Bank of England's application. We are merely taking the higher figure of £275,000,000 instead of the lower figure of £260,000,000 at this stage and leaving free a margin
of £15,000,000 within which discretion can be exercised, before putting into operation the later powers under Clause 8.
The word inflation has been introduced into this discussion, and without pronouncing on its merits or demerits, I would like to observe that inflation is in fact barred out—whether it is desirable or disastrous—from the possibilities of this situation so long as the Gold Standard Act of 1925 remains on the Statute Book. I do not discuss whether that Act should have been put on the Statute Book or whether it should remain there, but so long as it remains it does prevent inflation, because it links up by means of the gold bullion mechanism the price level in this country with the world price level as a whole. We can, however, still to some extent determine what the world level—and therefore our own level—shall be. If our Amendment is accepted, giving power to raise the level from £260,000,000 to £275,000,000, that would free £15,000,000 worth of gold which would otherwise have been use-

Division No. 129.]
AYES
[7.20 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John


Ainsworth, Lieut.-Col. Charles
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Goff, Sir Park


Albery, Irving James
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.)
Gower, Sir Robert


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Grace, John


Amery, Rt Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Charterls, Brigadier-General J.
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)


Applin, Col. R. V. K.
Christie, J. A.
Grant, Sir J. A.


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W
Churchman, Sir Arthur C.
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.


Astbury, Lieut-Commander F. W.
Cobb, Sir Cyril
Greene, W. p. Crawford


Baldwin, Rt. Hon, Stanley
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)


Balniel, Lord
Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Grotrlan, H. Brent


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Conway, Sir W. Martin
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.


Barnett, Major Sir Richard
Cooper, A. Duff
Gunston, Captain D. W.


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Cope, Major William
Hacking, Douglas H.


Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)
Couper, J. B.
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon
Courtauld, Major J. S.
Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)


Berry, Sir George
Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)
Hamilton, Sir George


Bethel, A.
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Hammersley, S. S.


Betterton, Henry B.
Crookshank, Cpt. H.(Lindsey,Gainsbro)
Harrison, G. J. C.


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Curzon, Captain Viscount
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)


Blundell, F. N.
Dalkeith, Earl of
Haslam, Henry C.


Boothby, R. J. G.
Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Davidson, Major-General Sir John H
Henderson, Capt. R. R.(Oxf'd,Henley)


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Davies, Maj. Geo.F.(Somerset,Yeovil)
Henderson, Lieut.-Col. Sir Vivian


Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)
Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.


Brass, Captain W.
Davies, Dr. Vernon
Henn, Sir Sydney H.


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Drewe, C.
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Eden, Captain Anthony
Hills, Major John Waller


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R, I.
Elliot, Major Walter E.
Hilton, Cecil


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.


Brown, Brig.-Gen.H.C.(Berks, Newb'y)
Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy


Buckingham, Sir H.
Fanshawe, Captain G. D.
Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Fermoy, Lord
Hopkins, J. W. W.


Bullock, Captain M.
Fielden, E. B.
Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.


Burgoyne, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Alan
Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M.(Hackney, N.)


Burman, J. B.
Foster, Sir Harry S.
Hudson, R. S. (Cumberland, Whiteh'n)


Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Foxcroft, Captain C. T.
Hurd, Percy A.


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Fraser, Captain Ian
Hurst, Gerald B.


Caine, Gordon Hall
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.


Carver, Major W. H.
Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony
Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)


Cautley, Sir Henry s.
Galbraith, J. F. W.
James Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Ganzonl, Sir John
Jephcott, A. R.


Cayzer, Maj Sir Herbt. R.(Prtsmth.S.)
Gates, Percy
Jones, Sir G.W.H. (Stoke New'gton)

lessly held, and thereby would prevent the possibility of a further fall in world prices, which we submit would bring about trade depression and unemployment. This Amendment, if accepted, will not in fact make possible inflation, whether that is desirable or not. What it will do will be to prevent the world price level from falling, which it may do if there is an expansion of trade, and it will prevent that helpful movement from being cancelled out by a subsequent credit stringency. I see no reason why, within the limits of orthodoxy which the Government have professed, and particularly after the support given by hon. Members to our Amendment, the Government should not give some undertaking that they will reconsider the matter and bring in their own words on the Report stage of this Measure.

Question put, "That the word 'shall' stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes,233; Noes, 131.

Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Steel, Major Samuel Strang


Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)
Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Streatfeild, Captain S. R.


King, Commodore Henry Douglas
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)
Sugden, sir Wilfrid


Knox, Sir Alfred
Pilcher, G.
Templeton, W. P.


Lamb, J. Q.
Pilditch, Sir Philip
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Locker-Lampson, Com. O.(Handsw'th)
Pownall, Sir Assheton
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Loder, J. de V.
Preston, William
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell


Looker, Herbert William
Price, Major C. W. M.
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Lougher, Lewis
Ralne, sir Walter
Wallace, Captain D.E.


Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Ramsden, E.
Ward, Lt.-Col. A.L. (Kingston-on-Hull)


Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Reld, D. D. (County Down)
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Lumley, L.R.
Remnant, Sir James
Warrender, Sir Victor


MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


MacIntyre, Ian
Rice, Sir Frederick
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


McLean, Major A.
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y,Ch'ts'y)
Wells, S. R.


Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell
White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dairymple-


MacRobert, Alexander M.
Ropner, Major L.
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Maitland,A. (Kent, Faversham)
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Rye, F. G.
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Salmon, Major I.
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Margesson, Captain D.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Winby, Colonel L. P.


Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Mason, Colonel Glyn K.
Sandeman, N. Stewart
Withers, John James


Meller, R. J.
Sanders, Sir Robert A.
Wolmer, Viscount


Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.
Womersley, W. J.


Meyer, Sir Frank
Savery, S. S.
Wood, E C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)


Milne, J. S. Wardlaw
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley
Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'ge & Hyde)


Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Shepperson, E. W.
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)
Skelton, A. N.
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dlne, C)
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Nelson, Sir Frank
Smlth-Carington, Neville W.
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (Norwich)


Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)



Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Oakley, T.
Stanley, Licut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.
Mr. Penny and Major The Marquess of Titchfield.


Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)





NOES


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Scurr, John


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Hirst, G. H.
Sexton, James


Ammon, Charles George
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bliston)
Hollins, A.
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Baker, Walter
Hore-Bellsha, Leslie
Shinwell, E.


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Barnes, A.
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)


Barr, J.
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Slesser, Sir Henry H.


Beckett, John (Gateshead)
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Smillie, Robert


Briant, Frank
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley)


Broad, F. A.
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Smith, Rennie (Penlstone)


Bromley, J.
Kelly, W. T.
Snell, Harry


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Kennedy, T.
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Stamford, T. W.


Buchanan, G.
Kirkwood, D.
Stephen, Campbell


Cape, Thomas
Lawson, John James
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Charleton, H. C.
Lee, F.
Sullivan, Joseph


Cluse, W. S.
Lindley, F. W.
Sutton, J. E.


Connolly, M.
Lowth, T.
Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey)


Cove, W. G.
Lunn, William
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Mackinder, W.
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Dalton, Hugh
MacLaren, Andrew
Thurtie, Ernest


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
MacNeill-Weir, L.
Tinker, John Joseph


Dennison, R.
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Tomlinson, R, p.


Duncan, C.
March, S.
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Maxton, James
Varley, Frank B.


Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Paisley)
Viant, S. P.


Gibbins, Joseph
Montague, Frederick
Wallhead, Richard C


Gillett, George M.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Watson, w. M. (Dunfermline)


Gosling, Harry
Murnin, H.
Watts-Morgan. Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Oliver, George Harold
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah


Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Owen, Major G.
Wellock, Wilfred


Greenall, T.
Palln, John Henry
Welsh, J. C.


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Paling, W.
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Griffith, F. Kingsley
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Williams. T. (York, Don Valley)


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Ponsonby, Arthur
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Groves, T.
Potts, John S.
Windsor, Walter


Grundy, T. W.
Pureed, A. A.
Wright, W.


Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvll)
Ritson, J.



Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Runciman, Hilda (Cornwall, St. Ives)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Hardie, George D.
Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter
Mr. Whiteley and Mr. Hayes.


Hayday, Arthur
Saklatvala, Shapurji

Mr. LEES-SMITH: I beg to move, in page 2, line 41, to leave out the word "sixty," and to insert instead thereof the word "seventy-five."
The reasons for this Amendment have already been stated, and I therefore move it formally.

Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE: Before this Question is put, may I ask whether the Government,in view of the discussion

Division No. 130.]
AYES
[7.30 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Kindersley, Major Guy M.


Ainsworth, Lieut.-Col. Charles
Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)
King, Commodore Henry Douglas


Albery, Irving James
Davies, Dr. Vernon
Knox, Sir Alfred


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Drewe. C.
Lamb, J. Q.


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Eden, Captain Anthony
Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Elliot, Major Walter E.
Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Handsw'th)


Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.
Ellis, R. G,
Loder. J. de V.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston s-M.)
Looker, Herbert William


Balniel, Lord
Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Lougher, Lewis


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Fanshawe, Captain G. D.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere


Barnett, Major Sir Richard
Fermoy, Lord
Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Fielden, E. B.
Lumley, L. R.


Beckett, Sir Gervaie (Leeds, N.)
Forestler-Walker, Sir L.
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen


Bellalrs, Commander Carlyon
Foxcroft, Captain C. T.
MacDonald, R. (Glasgow, Catheart)


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Fraser, Captain Ian
MacIntyre, Ian


Bennett, A. J.
Fremantle, Lt.-Col. Francis E.
McLean, Major A.


Berry, Sir George
Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony
Macnaghten, Hon. SirMalcolm


Bethel, A.
Galbraith, J. F. W.
MacRobert, Alexander M.


Betterton, HenryB.
Ganzonl, Sir John
Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Gates, Percy
Makins, Brigadier-General E.


Blundell, F. N.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn


Boothby, R. J. G.
Goff, Sir Park
Margesson, Captain D.


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Gower, Sir Robert
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.


Bowater, Colonel Sir T. Vansittart
Grace, John
Mason, Colonel Glyn K.


Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Meller, R. J.


Brass, Captain W.
Grant, Sir J. A.
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Meyer, Sir Frank


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Greene. W. P. Crawford
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)


Brooke, Brigadier-General C.R. I.
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Moniell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Grotrlan, H. Brent
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive


Brown, Brig.-Gen.H.C.(Berks, Newb'y)
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Nelson, Sir Frank


Buckingham, Sir H,
Hacking, Douglas H.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)


Bullock, Captain M.
Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)
Oakley, T.


Burgoyne, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Alan
Hamilton, Sir George
Oman, Sir Charles William C.


Burman, J, B.
Hammertley. S. S.
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Perkins, Colonel E.K.


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Harland, A.
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Calne, Gordon Hall
Harrison, G. J. C.
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)


Carver, Major W. H.
Harvey. Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Plicher, G.


Cassels, J. D.
Haslam, Henry C.
Pilditch, Sir Philip


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Pownall, Sir Assheton


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Henderson, Capt. R.R. (Oxf'd,Henley)
Preston, William


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt.R.(Prtsmth.C)
Henderson, Lieut.-Col. Sir Vivian
Price, Major C. W. M.


Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Raine, Sir Walter


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Ramsden, E.


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.)
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Reid, O. D. (County Down)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Hills, Major John Waller
Remnant, Sir James


Charter's, Brigadier-General J.
Hilton, Cecil
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.


Christie, J. A.
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Rice, Sir Frederick


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell


Cochrane, Commander Hon, A. D.
Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)
Ropner, Major L.


Coltox, Major Wm. Phillips
Hopkins, J. W. W.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Conway, Sir W. Martin
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney,N.)
Rye, F. G.


Cooper, A. Duff
Hudson, R. S. (Cumberl'nd, Whlteh'n)
Salmon, Major I.


Cope, Major William
Hume-Williams, sir W. Ellis
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Couper, J, B.
Hurd, Percy A.
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Hurst, Gerald B.
Sandeman, N. Stewart


Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Sanders, Sir Robert A.


Croft, Brigadier-General sir H.
Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustavo D.


Crookshank,Cpt.H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro)
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon Cuthbert
Savery, S.S.


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Jephcott, A. R.
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley


Dalkeith, Earl of
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Shepperson, E. W.


Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)
Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William
Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)


Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)
Skelton, A. N.

which has taken place, will undertake to consider before the Report stage the necessary Amendment to provide for a minimum of £260,000,000 and a maximum of £275,000,000, as suggested in this Amendment?

Question put, "That the word 'sixty' stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes,234; Noes,133.

Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kino'dine, C.)
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of.
Windsor-Cllve, Lieut.-Colonel George


Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Vaughan-Morgen, Col. K. P.
Withers, John James


Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Ward, Lt.-Col. A.L.(Kingston-on-Hull)
Wolmer, Viscount


Spender-Clay, Colonel H.
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.
Womersley, W. J.


Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.
Warrender, Sir Victor
Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)


Stanley, Lord (Fylde)
Waterhouse, Captain Charles
Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'dge & Hyde)


Steel, Major Samuel Strang
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)
Wood. Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Streatfeild, Captain S. R.
Wells, S. R.
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dalrymple
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Sugden, Sir Wilfrid
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Templeton, W. P.
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (Norwich)


Thom, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)



Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)
Winby, Colonel L. P.
Mr. Penny and Captain Wallace.




NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Hayday, Arthur
Ritson, J


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)
Saklatvala, Shapurji


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Ammon, Charles George
Hirst, G. H.
Scurr, John


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton,Bliston)
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Sexton, James


Baker, Walter
Hollins, A.
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Barnes, A.
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Shinwell, E.


Barr, J.
Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Beckett, John (Gateshead)
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)


Briant, Frank
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Slesser, Sir Henry H.


Broad, F. A.
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Smollie, Robert


Bromley, J.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Kelly, W. T.
Snell, Harry


Buchanan,G.
Kennedy, T.
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Cape, Thomas
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Stamford, T. W.


Charleton, H. C.
Kirkwood. D.
Stephen, Campbell


Cluse, W. S.
Lawson, John James
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Connolly, M.
Lee, F.
Sullivan. J


Cove, W. G.
Lindley, F. W.
Sutton, J. E.


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Lowth, T.
Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey)


Dalton, Hugh
Lunn, William
Thome, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Mackinder, W.
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Dennison, R.
MacLaren, Andrew
Thurtle, Ernest


Duncan, C.
MacNeill-Weir, L.
Tinker, John Joseph


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Tomlinson, R. P.


Foster, Sir Harry S.
March, S.
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.


Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
Maxton, James
Varley, Frank B.


Gibbins, Joseph
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw-
Viant, S. P.


Gillett, George M.
Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Paisley)
Wallhead, Richard C.


Gosling, Harry
Montague, Frederick
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Morris, R. H.
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin.,Cent.)
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah


Greenall, T.
Murnin, H.
Wellock, Wilfred


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Oliver, George Harold
Welsh, J. C.


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Owen, Major G.
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


Griffith, F. Kingsley
Palin, John Henry
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Paling, W.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Groves, T.
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Grundy, T. W.
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W,
Windsor, Walter


Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)
Ponsonby, Arthur
Wright, W.


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Potts, John S.
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Purcell. A. A.



Hardle, George D.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—




Mr. Hayes and Mr. Whiteley.

It being half-past Seven of the Clock, and leave having been given to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 10, further Proceeding was postponed, without Question put.

Orders of the Day — MISS SAVIDGE (POLICE INTERVIEW).

Mr. JOHNSTON: I beg to move, "That this House do now adjourn."
I should like at the outset to make it perfectly clear that we have raised this
discussion to-night, not because we have the slightest concern with what is known as the Money case, or the Hyde Park case. Our concern to-night is that we should take whatever steps can be taken by this House to preserve what civil liberties we still possess, and it is our duty to offer a resolute and determined opposition to anything in the nature of a Tcheka, or the Turkish system, or the Star Chamber method, or what is known in the United States of America as the third degree. Recently, as the House knows, an ex-member of a Government
and a lady were acquitted after a public trial on a charge for an offence alleged to have been committed in Hyde Park, The case was stopped by the learned magistrate before the lady was called upon to give her evidence. The magistrate was so dissatisfied with the evidence for the prosecution, that he stopped the case, awarded £10 costs against the police, and made certain strictures, which are public property, as regards the action of the police. As a result of these strictures, the Home Secretary promised in this House that he would initiate an inquiry. That is the background of the case which I have to present to the House to-night.
On Tuesday of this week, about 1.50 p.m., the lady who had been tried was visited at her place of business by an Inspector Clark, and a lady police officer, who, I believe, is correctly designated as a police chaperon. Miss Savidge was taken into her employer's room, where the police inspector produced his official card, and used these words: "I would like you to accompany me to Scotland Yard with reference to the Leo Money case." Miss Savidge replied that she thought that that case had been finished. The Inspector retorted that it was important that certain matters should still be cleared up, and that it was desired that she should accompany them at once to Scotland Yard. Miss Savidge said that she wanted to go home to change into another coat. The police chaperon declared that to be totally unnecessary, and said, "Miss Savidge must come at once." She was taken in a motor-car to New Scotland Yard. The car passed within a quarter of a mile of her residence, but no attempt whatever was made to enable her to acquaint her mother with where she was going. She arrived at New Scotland Yard, according to my information, about 2.30. She was taken to a room where were Inspector Clark, Inspector Collins and Miss Wiles, the police chaperon. Miss Wiles was dismissed from the room by Inspector Clark. Inspector Clark took down the questions and answers, while Inspector Collins conducted the interrogations.
Inspector Collins began by informing Miss Savidge that the Leo Money case was not nearly finished, that the police officers who had been implicated in the
case at Hyde Park were men of good character and good police records, but that their wives had to be considered. He added, "Don't tell lies to us. You have never been sworn before God. We know everything, and if you tell lies, both you and Sir Leo Money will suffer." Then they proceeded to ask her questions—entirely irrelevant questions with which I will not trouble you—about her age, about the wages she earned, and so on. Then a suggestion was put to her that she was not officially engaged to be married. She gave the name of her fiancé. Inspector Collins replied that he knew all about that; he knew who the young man was and his address. Then questions were asked her about how and when she met Sir Leo Money, and she gave the information. She was asked if she had been properly introduced to him, and she said: "Yes, she was introduced by a girl friend," whose name she gave. The police knew all that, and said so.
She was asked what she and the girl friend were doing near Albemarle Street on the night when she, Miss Savidge, was introduced by Miss Egan to Sir Leo Money, and she replied quite innocently that the two friends, she and Miss Egan, had gone to a hairdresser's premises in Albemarle Street which had been advertised as giving free treatment for permanent wave, but that they found that they had gone on the wrong day, and, after leaving these premises, they had met Sir Leo Money. The police then said that they knew all that, and that they knew more than Miss Savidge was aware of. Questions, and elaborate questions, were then put about how the two ladies and Sir Leo Money went to a cinema, where they sat in the cinema, how they sat in the cinema, and what transpired. Questions proceeded for a long time about the Astoria Hotel and about whether any presents in money or goods had ever been given to Miss Savidge; and she admitted that she had once got a present of a pair of suede gloves from Sir Leo Money at Christmas time. Questions were asked about her wardrobe and about her income. She denied any misconduct, and, to use the words in the statement, denied kissing or cuddling in the cinema, or that Sir Leo sat with his arms round her in the cinema. Then in the statement which she
gave yesterday, which is a sworn deposition, she says:
I got very tired of the cross-examination and let the statements go at what the officers had written down.
It is to the credit of the officers—and I say this frankly—that at this period, at any rate, they offered her tea. Tea was brought in, and there was one spoon. One of the officers suggested in a very flippant and humorous way that the one spoon would do for them all, and that "Irene will spoon with me." Then the questions proceeded, half hour after half hour, about what had happened at the Astoria Hotel and what were they talking about in Hyde Park? She told them, quite frankly, that she was speaking to Sir Leo Money about her young man. Then she was asked: Where were they sitting in Hyde Park? She said she did not know, and that it was the first occasion upon which she had ever been in Hyde Park; she did not know Hyde Park at all. Then they tried to trap her about whether she had taken any wine that night at dinner. They suggested that perhaps she was a little dazed, and therefore could not remember accurately what had transpired. This she denied.
Then, Sir, I come to a part of the evidence which I will state with the greatest possible delicacy. Remember that there was no woman chaperon there, and that this is a young girl, 22 years of age, who has gone through an experience which happens to very few young women, thank God! They asked her to stand up to show the length of her dress; they asked her what was the colour of her petticoat. They made comments on her petticoat; and now I will simply read the statements which she made before her solicitors yesterday:
I was then requested to give full particulars of the clothes I was wearing and what Sir Leo was wearing. They first requested me to stand up, so that they could see the length of my clothing, which I did. I gave them full particulars of the clothes which I was wearing. There was no woman present. They inquired whether I wore a petticoat, and, if so, what colour, and they made a statement that it was a very short petticoat I was wearing.
I will omit the next part, only saying this, that, if as the result of this discussion the Government and the Home Secretary should find it possible to give us the proper kind of inquiry which we
suggest, that evidence will be available to him immediately. Then Inspector Collins said—and I direct the attention of the Home Secretary to this—
Now, you are a really good girl, and you have never had a man, have you; but there are several things one could do without really sinning. Don't be afraid to tell us, as we are looking after you.
Then a demonstration—that is the only word I can use—took place. The officers sat down beside Miss Savidge and asked her for a demonstration of what had happened in Hyde Park. The officers said: "When we were young, we had a good time ourselves. We are only making these inquiries, you know, for the sake of the police officers whose conduct is being inquired into." A police officer put his arm round the girl to demonstrate how possibly Sir Leo might have been sitting.

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir William Joynson-Hicks): Which officer was that?

Mr. JOHNSTON: Inspector Collins. Then her statement proceeds:
The officer said, 'Now perhaps you cannot remember, but perhaps he put his hand on your knee,' and at the same time he placed his hand on my knee. He said: 'Are you sure he did not put his hand up your clothes?' I told him I was quite certain that no such act or anything approaching such an act had taken place. The officer said to me: 'As you and Sir Leo were sitting with your arms linked, isn't it possible that he took your hand and put it somewhere without you having noticed?'
Then proceeded what may be called, I suppose, a practical demonstration of where her hand might have been placed. I feel very considerable delicacy in this part of the statement, and I say no more than this, that the inspector put one of the girl's hands on his thigh by way of suggesting where the girl might have put her hand during the alleged incidents in Hyde Park. She was then asked if she could not remember whether or not her legs were crossed. They tried to trap her about whether or not two police officers had come upon the scene. She repeated that only one had come at first; she said, "Officer, not officers," and the inspector replied, "Oh, all right then." All that took five hours, without any opportunity being given to the girl to be assisted by a legal adviser, and without even the woman police chaperon being present.
The girl was then released from what I can only describe as a third degree examination. She was taken home in a car. She was questioned going home in the car. I do not complain about the questions then—questions about her fathers income and about her fiancé's income. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] She does not complain about those questions, and that is sufficient for me. The right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary to-day said that a telephonic communication had been sent to the mother. As a matter of fact, no telephonic communication was sent to the mother. A telephonic communication was undoubtedly sent to a nearby police station—

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The mother had no telephone.

Mr. JOHNSTON: I only wanted to be correct. A plain clothes policeman called upon the mother, but not until 6 o'clock, and it was not until 8 o'clock or thereabouts that the girl got home. When she got home, she collapsed. "The officers," she said, "repeatedly warned me that I was not to say a word to anybody that I had been at Scotland Yard, or that I had made a statement, and I would never hear any more of this matter, and this was repeated to me after my arrival home." It does not end there. An attempt was made to get evidence of a similar kind from the other girl, Miss Egan, but she refused to give any evidence unless in the presence of her brother.

Mr. HARDIE: British bullies!

Mr. JOHNSTON: It does not end even there. An attempt has been made to elicit evidence of a similar kind in other quarters; and Inspector Collins yesterday, or this morning, informed Miss Savidge's legal advisers that they had no right to be communicated with, that he, who was conducting the inquiries, had a right to take evidence where and how he liked, and that there was no necessity for him to communicate with Miss Savidge's solicitors at all. That, Sir, is the story. I am not going to dilate upon some of the statements which the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary used this afternoon in his answers to supplementary questions; but I observed to my surprise that in one of the London evening papers to-night there is a statement, alleged to be an official statement and
alleged to be an official defence of Scotland Yard's action, in which it is said that
Miss Wiles took down Miss Savidge's statement, and it has been handed to Sir Archibald Bodkin, who is now considering it.
8.0 p.m.
That statement is alleged by Miss Savidge and her advisers to be grotesquely and absurdly untrue. We have here a case which has been heard before a learned magistrate and dismissed, with £10 costs awarded against the police. An inquiry into the conduct of the police is set on foot by the right hon. Gentleman. The inquiry into the conduct of the police turns out to be an attempt by the police, using third degree methods of inquiry, to endeavour to trip up in some way or other Miss Savidge and her co-defendant in the recent police court proceedings. I will conclude by reading the letter which the solicitors for the defence sent to the right hon. Gentleman. I assume he got it this morning.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS indicated assent.

Mr. JOHNSTON: They are a reputable firm of solicitors in London, and they instructed as learned counsel one who, as an hon. Member of this House, formerly sat on the benches opposite, Sir Henry Curtis-Bennett. Here is their opinion of what has happened during this week:
Sir,—We are instructed by our client, Miss Irene Savidge, that on Tuesday, 15th instant, two police officers called at her place of business at New Southgate, and, without giving her an opportunity of consulting with her parents or ourselves, required her to accompany them to Scotland Yard, and there subjected her to an examination with reference to the recent prosecution of our client, Sir Leo Money, and herself. We understand that she was detained there for over five hours, and that after a searching cross-examination by two inspectors, she was then requested to sign a written statement purporting to contain the effect of her replies to the questions which were put to her. We can only express our astonishment at the conduct of the officers in question, and we shall be glad to know whether this was done by your authority. We must also ask you to be good enough to supply us with a copy of the statement in question.
Every Member of this House who has any respect for civil liberty, who has any respect for our ordinary judicial system, and wishes any respect to be paid to it,
must unite with us to-night in making such a demonstration of protest against these methods that these methods will never again be attempted in this country.

Mr. JAMES HUDSON: I beg to second the Motion.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I am sure the House would desire that I should make the statement I have to make at the earliest possible moment. May I recall to the House the manner in which this case first came before me? There was a prosecution of a gentleman who is well known to us all, who had been a colleague of mine in the House, and two police officers of perfectly good character and with a good record, one of whom had been a guardsman and left the Army with a very high character indeed—[HON. MEMBERS: "Speak up!"]—were the prosecuting witnesses against the gentleman and the lady in question. The case was dismissed, as the hon. Member has said, with some very strong observations by the magistrate, dismissed, in fact, without hearing all the evidence for the defence. The magistrate said: "It is not necessary; I dismiss the case." Quite frankly, I agree with the hon. Member who is raising this matter that the observations of the magistrate were disquieting, to say the least, to those who are responsible for the conduct of the police in this great City of ours. At once I was faced with this position. Quite naturally, there were questions in the House, and there were innuendoes—even more than innuendoes, accusations—in the Press that the police officers had been guilty of perjury. There were even suggestions in some quarters that it was the kind of thing that leads to blackmail. I accordingly, as the Minister responsible here for the administration of the police force, had to consider what line I personally should adopt.
There were several courses open to me. I could have let the thing go and done nothing. That was a course which did not enter into my mind, as the House, which knows me, will at once agree. It was then possible that I should ask the Commissioner of Police to hold a disciplinary inquiry himself into the conduct of these men. That is a course which is adopted in cases which are not of very grave importance in which an offence against the community
or members of the community is claimed to have taken place. That course I dismissed. Then I might have ordered a public inquiry such as I understand is suggested at the present moment. But there was a fourth course. Reading between the lines of the Magistrate's statement, in my view the suggestion was quite clearly made that this was not a case where there could have been any bona fide mistake, he having found quite clearly and quite definitely that this gentleman and this lady were not guilty of the offence; on the other hand the witnesses for the prosecution must have been guilty of wilful and deliberate misstatements amounting to perjury. I was faced with that position. On the one hand, as I have said to the House, I am responsible for the police, and within limits it is my duty, as the Minister responsible for the administration of a great body like the police, to support them and stand up for them unless I am satisfied that they have done wrong.
I therefore took what I should think the House will agree was a wise course. I sent the whole of the papers to the Director of Public Prosecutions. He is an independent officer, not under myself. He owes allegiance to my hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General. He has control of the whole of the public prosecutions throughout this country. It would have been quite impossible for me, as the head of the police, to conduct a prosecution for perjury against two of my own officers. I handed the matter over to him. I said, "I want you to inquire into this case, and when you have inquired and considered it, I want you to advise me; or, if you like, take your own responsibility and direct such proceedings as you think are right and as you think would lead to the conviction of the men if they have done wrong as suggested." From that moment I ceased to have personal cognisance of the matter, and it was not until after I received notice of the hon. Member's question this morning that I saw the Director myself. I am sure the House will forgive me for putting his view to the House. He takes a very strong view as to his own independence and as to his right to act entirely uncontrolled by any direction, for good or bad, by myself.

Commander BELLAIRS: Not of the Attorney-General.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Of myself; he is entirely free of any control by myself. He holds, and I think the House will agree he is right, that before he could undertake a prosecution for perjury, which is a very serious matter, involving the possibility of penal servitude and, I need hardly say, the loss of their entire position by these police officers, he must be satisfied by his own inquiries, not by mine, that there was at least a prima facie ease to go before the Courts. He therefore decided to make certain inquiries. He wrote in his own hand, he tells me, to the Commissioner of Police asking him to lend him one of his most experienced inspectors, and the Commissioner sent over—I had no knowledge of what was going on, nothing whatever to do with it—Chief Inspector Collins. Chief Inspector Collins was put in charge of the case, and certain inquiries were made. Then, as I say, I got notice this morning of the hon. Gentleman's question. In that question the hon. Gentleman accused the police of practically third degree methods. He said she had no opportunity of communicating with her parents or legal advisers; they expressly forbade her to communicate with anyone and she was taken to Scotland Yard and there questions were put to her over a period of five hours. If the hon. Member will allow me to say so, the suggestions he has made in his speech this evening as to the nature of the questions were not mentioned in that question. [Interruption.] I am not complaining, but I am going to say to the House that this was the first moment that I ever heard any suggestion of any questions of that kind.
Immediately after questions this afternoon, I sent for the Director of Public Prosecutions. As I have told the House, I do not as a rule interfere, because I have felt that I had no authority to interfere, but the suggestions were of great importance and, if hon. Members will forgive me for saying so, we are quite as much concerned for the liberty of the subject as they are. I sent at once for the Director of Public Prosecutions, and I also sent for Chief Inspector Collins and for Detective Sergeant Clark, the other one concerned in this case. I saw them personally. In view of what I am
going to say later, perhaps I had better not make any observations in regard to them either on the one side or the other. I took personal statements from them myself. I thought the matter was one of absolutely vital importance, and that the Secretary of State himself should devote his whole time to trying to get to the bottom of this affair. Upon those statements I came to the conclusion that there was undoubtedly a case for inquiry. The statements made by the Inspector and the Sergeant, and by the woman inspector who was present part of the time and drove in the car with Miss Savidge, all deny in the very strongest terms most of what has been said by the hon. Gentleman.
Here, then, is raised a quite definite challenge of truth between those for whom the hon. Member has spoken here tins evening and those two police officers. It is a very serious position indeed. I do not hesitate to say that since I have been Home Secretary there has been no such case. I have had various smaller troubles in regard to police matters. The House will remember that we have had inquiries into two or three different cases, but those have not given me anything like the grave anxiety which this one has given me—still more because of the statements made by the hon. Gentleman in his speech. I do not complain for one moment of the manner in which he has presented his case. The House will allow me to say that he presented it with great moderation, and put the points very fairly before the House.
What am I to do? As I say, I have the responsibility for the control of the police. The police themselves deny quite definitely the statements made. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman or the House may have noticed that while he was speaking and making those further accusations, which were not included in the question, accusations which, if there is any truth at all in them, are of the most damning character to the police force of the metropolis and these officers, I sent my private secretary, my Noble Friend the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Lord Erskine), up to my room, where those police officers now are, and he has brought down a message from them denying altogether the statements made by the hon. Member. [Interruption.] Forgive me. I am trying to tell
the House all the facts. It would be just as wrong for me to keep one side back as the other. After all, these officers are entitled to justice, just as much as, I say is quite definitely, the members of the public are entitled to justice. The hon. Member asked me in his speech if I would give a full and proper inquiry, an inquiry, I think he said, such as would be satisfactory to those concerned. If I had any doubt whatever as to the propriety of an inquiry this afternoon, I have no doubt whatever, after the statement made by the hon. Member, that it is essentially a case for a full and complete and exhaustive inquiry. I could not hold my office here for one single moment if I refused the request of the House of Commons to grant the fullest and most impartial inquiry into a case where grave allegations of this kind are made against three members of the police force.
Do remember that on the character of the Police Force depends a very great deal in the life of this great Metropolis. If it can be established for a moment that charges of this kind are true, if would be a very grave slur upon the Police Force, and it would be a slur and a disgrace from which, I do not hesitate to say, it would take them some time to recover. As the Minister responsible, I hope, from the bottom of my heart, that this inquiry will be of such a character and have such a result as will not merit that slur. On the other hand, the complainants are entitled to have that inquiry made to the uttermost. Therefore I accept the suggestion which has been made by the hon. Member for Dundee. I do not know what form the inquiry should take, but I can think of nothing better than that I should ask for the appointment of one of His Majesty's Judges to hold a full and open inquiry, and if the hon. Member or his colleagues would like to make any other suggestion as to the nature of the person or persons to hold that inquiry, I am quite willing to confer with them through the usual channels, and I should be glad to consult them in the course of to-morrow. I think hon. Members will agree that in a matter of very grave anxiety indeed I have done what I believe to be the only right thing. This is an inquiry which, I think, in the interests of the community, the whole
House would desire, and in the interests of the moral and the discipline of the Police Force I desire that the inquiry should be made as quickly and as exhaustively as possible.

Mr. ARTHUR HENDERSON: I am sure that the House must have listened with intense interest to the speech which has just been delivered by the Home Secretary, and all sections of the House must welcome the promise he has made with regard to the proposed inquiry. We on these benches readily accept his suggestion, accompanied by the offer he has made that there might be a consultation with those sitting on this side of the House with regard to the actual character of the inquiry. I hope the right hon. Gentleman and the Government will not limit this inquiry to the single issue that has been raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee (Mr. Johnston). I am sure the Home Secretary must be aware that there has recently arisen out of various cases a growing dissatisfaction and, may I say, a withdrawing of public confidence in regard to some of the methods adopted by the Metropolitan Police? I do not say whether that is right or wrong but, as the Home Secretary said in his closing sentences, so much depends upon the public having confidence in the Metropolitan Police that we cannot afford to allow an increase in this dissatisfaction or a further withdrawal of the confidence of the public in the Police Force.
At the same time, with all due deference to the Home Secretary, I say that something more is needed than the handing over of this case to the Director of Public Prosecutions. The question of the police methods has been raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee. The right hon. Gentleman appointed a Committee, and thought it wise to leave it entirely to that inquiry. But surely we have never had a case like this? Here is a young lady who is not a prisoner, and there is no suggestion that she will be a prisoner; in fact, all that is suggested is the other way, because she was discharged and exonerated, and alternately the police were put in the dock. This young lady is taken from her place of business and taken down to a room at New Scotland Yard.
Let the House remember that this is a very serious matter. Why did we insti-
tute women police? Why did we appoint a Committee a few years ago to look into the work done by the women police I Why did we suggest that they should be increased in number? In this case the women police have been used for a purpose for which they ought never to have been used, and when a woman policeman ought to have been used she was actually turned out of the room in which the investigation was going to take place. If women police are to be treated like that, it is going to have a detrimental effect on the public mind as to the proper use to which women police should be put. But that is not all. It is no use suggesting to the House that this young lady did not ask for this, that, or the other, or for any assistance. I think that the Director of Public Prosecutions, if he desired to get any assistance from this young woman, ought to have written to her and made an appointment. He ought to have asked her for an appointment either at her home in the presence of her father, or else at the office of her legal advisers, who had taken part in the recent case in promoting her defence. None of these things was done.
All this hinges upon the more recent methods that seem to have crept into the police administration in the Metropolitan area. This kind of thing is not good for the police themselves, or for the whole object for which the right hon. Gentleman instituted an inquiry. The whole object of referring this case to the Director of Public Prosecutions has been completely destroyed. I think the House will agree with that view. What use is this statement now? How can the Home Secretary ask the Director of Public Prosecutions to proceed to charge these officers with perjury, and take them into any Court in this country after the statement upon which the case was going to be based has been extracted from this young lady in this way? It is absolutely useless. Now I come back to the point at which I started. The issue raised to-day is not the issue of the right hon. Gentleman having asked the Director of Public Prosecutions to do a certain thing. That may have been the right thing to do, but I think the issue with which we are now faced is the coming into our police administration of what has been characterised as third degree methods. If we are adopting such
methods we ought to check them, or at least the public should be made aware of what is really involved. I hope, therefore, that the Home Secretary and the Prime Minister will both keep their minds open as to the scope of the inquiry. When we are at it, let us make it real, let us make it comprehensive, let us make it searching. Then, probably, we shall do something to restore public confidence, and, I hope, prevent any repetition of one of the most disgraceful episodes that has ever been brought to the notice of this House.

Captain O'CONNOR: It would be somewhat curious if no more voices were to be heard on a matter which is of really vital importance to so many of the people of this country, more especially as, although this is a manifestation of a feature, it is only one manifestation, I am confident, of a feature that has been creeping in and has beers causing grave suspicion in the minds of the public for some time past. I feel very grateful indeed to the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary, and I think he has adopted the only possible and right course in acceding to the request for an inquiry. I want to go one step further, and, without being invidious in suggesting the names of persons who should take part in that inquiry, I do suggest that this is a case in which both the right hon. Gentleman and those who suggest the form that the tribunal should take should be particularly careful that, if it be a judicial one, it is constituted with, as its President, some Judge of notoriously generous feeling and wide views. It is possible, even with judicial desires and impartial minds, for Judges to have the point of view of the prosecuting counsel, and it is not impossible that a tribunal might be set up which was not as favourable to hearing evidence which tended against the police as some other tribunal that might be proposed.
The right hon. Gentleman, I think, flattered himself when he said that he was always prepared to investigate cases of perjury. He will remember, when I recall it to him, that, no more than about three years ago, I myself invited him to prosecute two police officers who gave perjured evidence against me. One officer gave evidence against me of a conversation that had occurred when, as I alleged
and proved, he was not present. I invited the right hon. Gentleman, and he invited the Director of Public Prosecutions, to consider the case with a view to instituting a prosecution, but no steps were taken, although the conviction—which was a comparatively trivial one, merely for dangerous driving of a motor car—was quashed at my instance without my being called on, and although there was the evidence of both myself and my wife to prove that a case of deliberate and direct perjury had occurred upon a vital issue. That is one example of the disquieting cases that have caused many of us to press for an investigation of this character, and, from such inquiries as have been open to me, I myself have been satisfied that there is a case to be investigated in regard to these suggested "third degree" methods. I myself have known of cases which approximate to the "third degree," and I should he very pleased to give the Home Secretary, at the proper time, instances, with names, of people who have been, to my knowledge, kept at Scotland Yard for considerable periods of time while statements were being taken from them.
The matter is made worse when the reply is given that those people were probably guilty people. That does not affect it. Anyone can be generous to the innocent person; it is when a person has a murky record on some other head that it is particularly desirable that the principle of the liberty of the subject should be respected above all others. For that reason, I hope that this inquiry will be relentlessly pursued. The time is absolutely ripe for it. It may be of interest to the House to know that last year there was a suggestion of raising the question, arising out of the Good-wood conviction, which filled some of us with a certain amount of distress and lack of confidence. This matter would have been raised, and it was my intention to raise it, in this House, but I was told by sensible, serious people whom I respected, in all quarters of the House—not by way of threat, but by way of caution—"Do not dare mix up in this, because, if you do, they will get you sooner or later"; and there are serious, reasonable people in this country who are afraid to go into Hyde Park, and who really do view with apprehension the threat that, somehow or other, the
police will get back at them if they attempt to enforce the ordinary rights of citizens. I think that this inquiry, once it is embarked upon, can do a great deal of good in cleaning out and purging something that is wrong in the Metropolitan Police Force.

Sir JOHN SIMON: The hon. and gallant Member for Luton (Captain O'Connor) has made a contribution to the Debate which I am sure the whole House has appreciated. Perhaps I may be allowed, as an old Home Secretary and an old Attorney-General, to say a word on the matter. Everyone sympathises sincerely with the difficult position of a Home Secretary when he is challenged and has to answer on a matter of this sort, and the right hon. Gentleman has done what we expect him to do, that is to say, he has done all that he properly could at this stage to protect the interests of public servants who cannot themselves be heard in this House, and at the same time he has proposed a method by which this very alarming situation may be investigated. I have some doubt as to whether a conclusion on this particular issue, which has been raised so clearly before the House by the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Johnston), could wisely be postponed until some distant date, when all investigations of a similar kind may have been embodied in a Report. I am not opposed to a wider inquiry, and I think that what the hon. and gallant Member for Luton has just said has much truth in it. The matter is not merely one of whether the Metropolitan Police are deserving of the confidence of the public; what is very nearly as important is that public opinion should be reaffirmed in the view that it can safely give it to them. Therefore, a wider inquiry may very well be right, but, if there is going to be a wider inquiry, I would venture to suggest that it should be made a specific term of the wider inquiry that this particular incident should be investigated first, and should be reported upon first. Otherwise, we shall get involved in very lengthy investigations, a great number of people who, for some reason or other, have a complaint against the police, or think that their reputation can be improved, will want to come forward and claim to help, and there will be great delay.
The other point that I would venture to make to the House and to the Home Secretary is this: I am not sure that everyone present has quite appreciated how extremely disquieting the answer is which the right hon. Gentleman has given to us now. It is one thing for him to say, "These police officers are in my room, and there are matters in the statement made which they deny"; but let us be a little precise for a moment. Is not the Home Secretary already informed and in a position to tell us that this young woman was in fact fetched from her office without any previous notice and carried off in a police car to Scotland Yard? I say to myself what I dare say many other Members say: If that had happened to my daughter, how should I feel l Although there is bound to be disputing, and will be to the end, as to some details of what passed at Scotland Yard, the thing that is so disquieting to me first of all is that the Home Secretary is not in a position, after making investigations, to deny that.
The second thing is this. This lady, I understand, was represented at the recent Police Court proceedings by a solicitor. As well as the gentleman in question, she had counsel. No doubt it is true when the case is over the counsel had finished with it, but still I am speaking in the presence of some members of the profession of the law, both barristers and solicitors; who know this thing very well. I should have thought if one was going to get a statement from this young woman in the circumstances, knowing she had just had a solicitor acting for her and that she was quite a young woman, it might have been reasonable to ring him up or communicate with him in some way and it does not give one a very pleasant impression when one finds that has not been done. [An HON. MEMBER: "The Home Secretary is in the dock!"] The Home Secretary is constitutionally responsible to the House, and I am all for holding him responsible.
The third thing which, at least to me, with such experience as I have had, was extremely disturbing is this. It is true that if you are going to take a statement from a confused witness about some distant matter that happened a long time, ago, you may perfectly honestly occupy a good deal of time in doing it, but this was dealing with a thing that had only just happened, and a thing which, right
or wrong, must have been burnt into the woman's memory, and I cannot understand how it could possibly take five hours to do it. It was between one and two o'clock when she was visited and eight o'clock when she was released. We are told the officers have a good record behind them. There are other matters that they challenge. [An HON. MEMBER: "You are prejudging them!"] I am not prejudging them in the least. I have been very careful to say these three matters are undisputed and indisputable.
It is those three things that are common ground, and while I do not in the least prejudge what happened at Scotland Yard, it is a very grave thing to find that in those three respects there had been no dispute about it, and the conclusion I should have thought the House would be wise to come to would be that possibly there might be conferences between the different parties concerned, but I would at least urge that if the inquiry is general this case should be dealt with first and it should be reported first, because it wants to be done without unnecessary delay. I beg the pardon of the hon. Member who seems to think I have been prejudging the matter. I have prejudged nothing that is not admitted, but the things that do not appear to be challenged at all are so disturbing that I think the very least the Home Secretary can do is what he has frankly done and suggest an inquiry.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: May I, by permission of the House, say one word. I have the statements of other people. I have a statement from a gentleman who is in the House now and who was present, one of the managers of the firm, when this young lady was asked by the sergeant to go to Scotland Yard. I felt, as there is to be an inquiry, that it would be very much better not to attempt to dispute questions of detail, but I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman and the House generally not to assume that all the statements are accepted by me. I thought it very much better that the evidence I have in my possession should be put before whoever holds the inquiry.

Commander BELLAIRS: I congratulate the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Johnston) who brought this matter forward. On all the points on which the
Home Secretary has replied, every one must see that the conduct of the Director of Public Prosecutions is called in question. This matter ought never to have happened. The Director of Public Prosecutions is responsible for it, and the inspector must have acted under his authority. The Attorney-General is responsible for the Director of Public Prosecutions. We are entitled to some explanation how it came about that the Director of Public Prosecutions authorised the cross-examination of this young woman for five hours. It is inconceivable to my mind how it can have happened. I come to this point. Does the inquiry under the Director of Public Prosecutions go on? Is it abandoned? I come to another point. Were there no shorthand notes taken of the proceedings during the five hours cross-examination when the Director of Public Prosecutions was not present? It is a most astounding thing and I think some explanation is due to us about the action authorised under the Director of Public Prosecutions.

Mr. HAYES: Speaking with the experience I have had in the Metropolitan Police, and contact with the police service generally throughout the country, there will he nothing but warm-hearted support for the decision of the Home Secretary to have the fullest possible inquiry into the allegations that have been made. No one, I hope, will accuse me of not being a friend of the police. I have always held the view, even at the risk of my own personal popularity, that where there is wrong, particularly in the police, he would be a poor friend to the police who made any effort to close down what ought to be a thoroughpaced inquiry, and I am positive that, as the result of the Debate, at any rate we shall keep our minds open, hoping that the inquiry will sift it from beginning to end and will also deal with the system which provides either opportunities or inducements or in any way leaves the police officer an exceedingly difficult duty to do, and then after he has done it leaves the individual officer to incur the penalty of public opinion.
A great disservice has been done to the future interests of these two officers who were engaged in the original case by
what has transpired. I am not going to ask the right hon. Gentleman to withdraw any possibility of a prosecution, because I feel if there had been a prosecution on lines which would have been without any question as to the propriety of the methods, it is possible the officers would have been quite prepared to take their trial in the dock. I now feel that the Director of Public Prosecutions, having come into the picture, having accepted a great measure of responsibility for the manner and the method in which the inquiries are made by those who are sent from New Scotland Yard—excellent officer of the Crown as he may be—cannot expect either Judge, jury or public opinion to take an unbiased point of view with regard to any evidence which may he tendered through the channel for which he is responsible. While I do not appeal for the prosecution to be withdrawn, I am hopeful, at any rate, that before any proceedings for perjury, if such proceedings are demanded, are taken against the two officers in question we shall have the whole atmosphere—the bad atmosphere—which has been created cleared up by the inquiry which is proceeding.
I should imagine that it will be possible, within the constitution of the inquiry that may be set up, whatever may have been the delinquency or otherwise of the officers in the case, to do the whole job and clean up the whole thing, in order that there may be no question about opportunities being presented to the officers in the case. I only rose to put that point of view. I have known considerable feeling in the service from time to time because of the opinions that have sometimes been developed by the Press, but nevertheless there is a feeling that whatever opinions one may hold nothing can be lost to the police by a public inquiry. If there is an offender in the police force against either the high standard of the force or the methods that ought to be adopted, then that individual is better out of the police force than in it. That feeling is rooted deeply in the heart of every man who is proud of the service. Although I left the service under circumstances which might have been unpopular at that time, at any rate, I am positive that the feeling which stimulated the action of many of us in endeavouring to cleanse the
service from any possibility of mismanagement or impropriety and which existed then exists to-day. The Home Secretary will be supported, and I am perfectly certain that his action will be applauded by every common-sense person in the police force.

Mr. WITHERS: I do not intervene in the Debate except to make some suggestions. I associate myself entirely with the remarks made by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon). I would point out, however, that the Home Secretary cannot do more than he has done, in saying that he will give the inquiry asked for. That he has whole-heartedly done. The only question arises: What sort of inquiry ought it to be? First and foremost, it must be quick; it must be done at once. We do not want to wait about while people consider what the general scope of the reference is to be. While this thing is in people's minds and before they can change their minds, let us get it done and finished with. If we have a general inquiry after that, that is another matter, but for heaven's sake let us get a quick, short, sharp inquiry on this particular thing and carry on the other afterwards. It is a very definite cut-and-dried case, and there ought to be no difficulty in getting at the root of the matter if it is done quickly. That is the whole thing.
As regards the nature of the tribunal, I always feel that in these cases one single Judge is rather at a disadvantage. Where it is a case of disputed evidence, as it will be in this case, the Judge, under the ordinary procedure, asks very properly for the assistance of a jury. My feeling is that the tribunal ought to consist of not fewer than three, and that it should be presided over by a High Court Judge of the nature mentioned by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Luton (Captain O'Connor), not what we call a criminal Judge but a general Judge, a King's Bench Judge of wide experience. I think he ought to have associated with him two other men of standing and legal training who will assist him in determining issues of fact. Having said that I have nothing more to say.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I want to ask a question of the Home Secretary before we leave this matter, and he can answer me without any sort of an inquiry at all. I wish to say, before putting this question, that I naturally associate myself with everything that has fallen from the lips of hon. and right hon. Members of the three parties. This has really become a non-party question, and I see the House of Commons for once absolutely united. At Question Time to-day, and again to-night, the Home Secretary rather led me to believe—I am a layman and he is a member of the legal profession, and will, I hope, excuse me if I have made a mistake—that once he had sent papers in a certain case to the Public Prosecutor, he, as Home Secretary, had no further jurisdiction and no further control, and that the Public Prosecutor then acted apparently entirely on his own responsibility. He could instruct the police to take a person for examination, and perhaps could raid and search a house. Apparently he had an absolutely free hand, except that nominally he is, as Public Prosecutor, answerable to the Attorney-General. Is that the case?
I see the learned Attorney-General in his place. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will explain what is his responsibility in this rather unusual case? Was he aware of the methods, or was he consulted or advised as to the methods that were to be used to obtain evidence in this inquiry or evidence on which a prosecution might be founded? It was a case of prosecuting apparently either two police officers or Sir Leo Chiozza Money and the young lady for perjury. One or other of the two parties must have been committing perjury. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] I must have misunderstood it. Then it was only a question of prosecuting the two police officers?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Quite clearly there was no probability or possibility of prosecuting Sir Leo Chiozza Money and Miss Savidge. The question was whether the police officers were de serving of prosecution. Perhaps I may answer the question put to me by the hon. and gallant Gentleman. It is quite true that it is the rule of our constitution that executives should not interfere in these matters. I handed the case over to the Director of Public Prosecutions. It was then his responsibility to conduct
the case, and it would have been wrong for me—and I have never done so—to give him instructions as to the method he should adopt in carrying out his duties. He is entitled to appeal to the Attorney-General for advice if he wishes, but I, as it were, cease to have control of a case as soon as I hand it over to him.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman. The question as to who is to be prosecuted for perjury is not important. I am not asking about that at all, and I am sorry if I created an impression of that sort. The right hon. Gentleman is responsible for the use of the police, the inspectors, the detectives, the women police, and so on, because that is an executive action. The right hon. Gentleman says that as a Minister he does not rant to interfere with the judiciary, but does the Public Prosecutor act with a judicial function? If so, who gives the executive orders to the police? For example, suppose the Public Prosecutor at any time has a case sent to him by the Home Secretary arising out of some lawsuit. Does that empower him to search the house of anybody and to take anybody to Scotland Yard? Was the Attorney-General consulted?
The Attorney-General is a Law Officer of the Crown, does he accept any responsibility in the matter? I am anxious, as a private Member who has had no legal training, that these points should be cleared up. Probably 999 people out of every 1,000 people have had no legal training, and they will desire that these points should be cleared up, because they are also disquieted, as we are. What are the powers of the Public Prosecutor, and to whom is he responsible? Apparently, Sir Archibald Bodkin did not see the Home Secretary or give him any account of his action. I should like to say to the Home Secretary that that state of affairs will not be tolerated. We cannot have even a Public Prosecutor above Parliament, above the Cabinet, above the law, when to his hand he has the well-disciplined and generally excellent body, the Metropolitan Police, who have to obey his orders. These points must be cleared up, and I would ask for enlightenment, if possible, from the Attorney-General on a matter of great importance.

Mr. HARNEY: I think the Home Secretary takes too narrow and too technical a view of his position. It seems to me that the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Attorney-General are responsible for the conduct of the prosecution, but the Home Secretary remains responsible for the conduct of the police, whether there is to be a prosecution or not. Nothing can remove the responsibility that lies on him for seeing that the policemen act correctly. He has nothing to say as to whether there shall or shall not be a prosecution or as to what steps shall be taken for the conduct of the prosecution, but he always remains responsible for any acts of the policemen, as policemen, during a prosecution, as he is when there is no prosecution. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon) dealt with three points with a clearness which satisfied the House. The question that remains is, what is to be the character of the tribunal that will hold the inquiry. It is rather a difficult and delicate matter for a barrister to make any remark about Judges, but here is a case where we know there will be on one side two police officers and one policewoman, and on the other, a girl. It is most important that those who are conducting the inquiry should be removed from all possible suspicion of having a leaning towards the acceptance of police evidence. Magistrates and Judges in criminal cases are every day having their opinions formed by what policemen swear, and they find, or I will assume they find in the great bulk of cases that they are reliable witnesses, and that may create an unconscious bias in favour of police evidence. Therefore, I am sure that the public would be better satisfied if those who sit on that inquiry are felt to have no connection whatsoever with the police, had never heard police evidence and would simply be actuated by a view which would make police evidence stand on exactly the same footing as that of anybody else. I am sure the Home Secretary will study the question with a view to meeting these points.

9.0 p.m.

Sir HENRY SLESSER: There are certain matters which arise out of this case which still remain to be cleared up. It is true that we have been promised an inquiry with regard to what actually happened when this unfortunate woman was
taken to Scotland Yard, but I would like to know, in the first place, by what authority anyone had a right to go to interview this woman. Very little has been said about that. As the right hon. and learned Member for Spen Valley justly said, all the earlier parts of this unfortunate affair are really beyond dispute. By what authority, then, did the police go to see this woman? She was not suspected of committing any crime; she was not a person who was liable to be charged with perjury. She was a person who, if the magistrate is to be believed, had been doubly wronged. For all we know she may herself have been contemplating an action against these police for false imprisonment, and she may have consulted her solicitor with a view to enforcing her legal rights for the wrong which these police have done to her. How is it that in the circumstances of this woman, who would be rather a complainant than a suspected person, the police went to her place at all?
I cannot help thinking that some confusion has arisen as to the functions of the Director of Public Prosecutions and the police in this matter. I have been for a short time a Law Officer, and I have some knowledge, though not very deep, of the way in which these matters proceed. I understand that the Director of Public Prosecutions says, and very properly: "Before I can decide whether I will enter upon a prosecution I must have the evidence put before me." The evidence is put before him, and, as an experienced criminal lawyer, he says: "Having this or that evidence before me, I can decide whether or not I will bring a prosecution." I never understood that it was any part of the function of the Director of Public Prosecutions to say what methods were to be employed in order to obtain the evidence. The whole complaint here, as I understand it, is not that the Public Prosecutor might have written a letter to this lady, as any lawyer might, who wished to get evidence in a case, and have said: "May I visit you, or may someone on my behalf visit you, quietly, in your own residence, and will you please say what you have to say?"
The complaint is as to the method by which the evidence was extracted and the manner in which this woman was
handled. Those are matters for the police; those are matters for the Home Office, and I am not at all satisfied that the Director of Public Prosecutions had anything to do with this action at all. It has been left in such a confused way that I believe the public on reading this Debate to-morrow will get the idea, which may be a true one, although I do not think it is, that the Director of Public Prosecutions authorised this lady to be taken in a cab to Scotland Yard, authorised a five hours examination and authorised all the other things of which we are complaining.

Mr. THURTLE: Very likely he did.

Sir H. SLESSER: My hon. Friend says that very likely he did. At any rate, that impression has been created. If the Director of Public Prosecutions did authorise it, then we ought to know it. If, on the other hand, as I believe from my knowledge of the way in which these things are done, the police did it, then that ought to be clearly stated. We do not know at the moment how much responsibility the Public Prosecutor took in the matter, but I find it very difficult to believe that the Public Prosecutor, whatever anybody may say, did give minute directions as to the way in which this evidence was to be obtained. I believe it was done by Scotland Yard, and the Home Secretary is the Minister responsible. He cannot avoid his responsibility by saying that the matter has passed to the Director of Public Prosecutions and that he has no further responsibility. Therefore, on this point at any rate we are entitled to some information. The real fact of the matter is this, that we have seen during this Parliament in particular more and more power going to the Executive as against the private citizen. We have found it in Bill after Bill, and in one way after another the theory has been advanced that the Executive have rights which are denied to the private individual. With such knowledge of constitutional law as I possess, I say that the Home Secretary, the Director of Public Prosecutions and the police, had no more right to interrogate that woman than any private citizen.

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. and learned Member will kindly address the Chair.

Sir H. SLESSER: I say that the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Home Office had no more right to ask that lady what she had to say, in order to enable them to decide whether they would prosecute the policemen concerned, than any private litigant who was proposing to prosecute the policemen. There is a growing belief in certain places that the Government have a right to interrogate, investigate and arrest in a way which is denied to the private citizen and, therefore, if for no other reason, I protest against all the things which were done in this case. I say nothing as to what actually happened at Scotland Yard, but I say that there is common ground for declaring that what is already admitted to have happened is most serious and most disquieting. I join with other hon. Members in thanking the Home Secretary for promising an inquiry, and I hope that in considering the personnel he will also consider the scope of the proposed inquiry and should consider whether we can tolerate public officials abrogating to themselves rights which are denied to private citizens.

Mr. SHINWELL: I only rise for the purpose of pressing three points on the attention of the House. The Home Secretary has quite properly said that he feels it to be his duty to defend police officers under his control. That defence will clearly involve considerable expenditure of public money, and so far as the police officers are concerned, it will afford them no trouble whatever. But what about the unfortunate family associated with this unhappy girl? Already they have been involved in considerable expense. I would remind the House that during the hearing of the case by the magistrate, it was pointed out that one of the disquieting features was that whilst a rich person might escape because he is able to employ learned counsel, at some expense, the working class person would be found guilty because he is unable to employ learned counsel. In this particular case considerable expense has already been incurred, and clearly much more expense will be involved if a public inquiry is held. I want to ask the Home Secretary whether in such a public inquiry, involving learned counsel on either side, the expenditure incurred by the complainants will be met out of public money as will be the case of learned counsel employed for the purpose of defending
the police officers. I think we are entitled to some enlightenment from the right hon. Gentleman on that point.
My second point is with regard to the functions of the police officers concerned. A charge of a serious nature has been brought against them. It is true that they have not been found guilty, but in the meantime it is quite proper to request that they should be suspended from duty. Surely the right hon. Gentleman does not propose to permit these police officers to continue their duties whilst this serious charge is hanging over their heads? Obviously the girl will be suspended from her duties. She cannot resume her employment. I wonder what will be the economic implications of her trial yesterday? It is very difficult for a girl in such a case to resume her employment. The finger of scorn is pointed at her by her associates, and the statements made in the House to-day will be associated with her. I deplore that, as I am sure every hon. Member will deplore it also, but we all know what happens in such cases, and I think we are entitled to ask that the police officers concerned shall he suspended from duty.
My third point is with regard to the astonishing silence of the Attorney-General during this Debate. He was not so silent when the case of a certain Mr. Campbell was under consideration in 1924. I recall also that Sir Archibald Bodkin was then the Director of Public Prosecutions, as he is now. There is an atmosphere created by the presence of this gentleman that is somewhat disturbing, and the Attorney-General ought to rise in his place and tell the House whether he was aware of the intentions of the Director of Public Prosecutions before these police officers were sent on this unworthy mission. The Home Secretary has told us that he accepts no responsibility for the Director of Public Prosecutions: he passes it on to the shoulders of the Attorney-General. In that case it is quite proper to ask the Attorney-General to defend the Director of Public Prosecutions for the wanton act which was committed yesterday, and about which no inquiry is necessary. I join with other hon. Members on this side and below the Gangway in the observation that whatever inquiry may be called for in respect of the statements made at this Box, or the case which forms the basis of these observations, no inquiry
is called for in respect of the precipitate and premature action of the Director of Public Prosecutions. The Attorney-General is the person responsible, and he must either at this stage or some future occasion answer for the deeds of his subordinate. I think we are entitled to some information from the Home Secretary or the Attorney-General in respect of these matters.

The ATTORNEY - GENERAL (Sir Thomas Inskip): If there is going to be—as there is—a judicial inquiry into the matters connected with the examination of Miss Savidge, it is most desirable, in my opinion, that individual Members should not express their views as to the truthfulness of the statements made by one party or the other. There is nothing more likely to make the result of a judicial inquiry unsatisfactory than attempts by hon. Members to prejudge the issues. I shall therefore refrain from saying a single word upon any of the matters which have been brought in charge against any of the police officers concerned. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary replied to the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon) in terms with which I am sure the right hon. and learned Gentleman would not quarrel. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Spen Valley expressed the view that certain matters were not in dispute, and he expressed some concern that those matters were apparently admitted. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said enough to indicate to the right hon. Gentleman and the House that the whole of the truth has not yet been disclosed, as to some, at any rate, of the matters referred to by the right hon. Gentleman. I repeat that warning. I say no more about these matters, because they are, with the consent and at the request of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite, to be the subject of a judicial inquiry. That is enough for that aspect of the case.
The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Shinwell) has, for some reason best known to himself, sought to make me the object of some charge. Of what precisely that charge is I am ignorant. The hon. Member imported into this case a matter which I thought he would have been better to forget, namely, the Campbell case. The difference between the Camp-
bell case and this is that in the Campbell case, as we all recollect, certain instructions were at first given by the Attorney-General and then withdrawn. I will not enter into the circumstances in which they were withdrawn. In this case the Attorney-General has not yet given any instructions. As Attorney-General, I have not been asked to give any instructions. It is not usual for the Director of Public Prosecutions to ask the Attorney-General for instructions as to prosecution in a case in which the evidence has not yet been obtained. The duty of the Director of Public Prosecutions is to make such inquiries as a person appointed to discharge his responsibilities must be trusted to make. When be has ascertained the nature of the case from the investigation which he is properly charged and trusted to make, he will obtain, and does obtain in proper course, the directions of the Attorney-General. For the moment, I happen to be the Attorney-General and when I am asked to give directions and have given them, those directions will not be subject to the interference of any executive officer. That is the difference between this case and what happened in the case to which the hon. Member refers.

Mr. SHINWELL: The hon. and learned Gentleman has forgotten one point of substance, and that is that in this important case—with which the right hon. Gentleman beside him was very much concerned—he was absolutely ignorant of what was going on and that his subordinate, the Director of Public Prosecutions, took an action which might have involved the Government in considerable difficulties without consulting him.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: The hon. Member is still apparently unable to appreciate the duties either of the Director of Public Prosecutions or of the Attorney-General. The Director of Public Prosecutions—I repeat for the information of the hon. Member—has the duty of making proper inquiries into the case which is entrusted to him. [HON. MEMBERS: "Proper inquiries!"] If he makes improper inquiries, or uses improper methods, that is a matter for which the Director of Public Prosecutions or any officers under him will be prepared to answer. [HON. MEMBERS: "To whom?"] In this House. [HON. MEMBERS:
"Through you?"] Certainly, but the hon. Member who last spoke appeared to be making some point, which I still fail to understand, against me for not giving directions in a case which is not ripe for my decision. The hon. Member will be pleased to understand that when the Director of Public Prosecutions has obtained the evidence which he thinks necessary to enable a decision to be arrived at, he will then seek my direction. Up to that point it is for the Director of Public Prosecutions to use his discretion. I will say no more about the way in which the Director of Public Prosecutions exercised his powers in this case, because those are the very matters which are to be submitted to judicial inquiry.

Mr. JOHNSTON: In view of the pledge given by the Home Secretary that there will be a full inquiry in a form as to which he will consult with my right hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. A. Henderson) and other Members on this side and in all parts of the House, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

Several HON. MEMBERS rose—

Mr. SPEAKER: I am bound to put that Question to the House. Is it the pleasure of the House that the Motion be withdrawn?

HON. MEMBERS: Agreed.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE rose—

Mr. SPEAKER: Does the right hon. Gentleman object?

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I only rise to ask a question of the Home Secretary. If the police are represented by counsel in this inquiry, obviously Miss Savidge and Sir Leo Chiozza Money will also find it necessary to be represented by counsel. The inquiry may take some time and may be a very expensive proceeding. The fees of the police counsel will be borne by the Treasury—by the public—and would it not be fair, especially having regard to the fact that this young lady has not means, that her counsel should also be provided at the public expense?

Mr. SAKLATVALA: I also wish to ask a question. The women who read this Debate will be very disquieted with
regard to their safety from police methods. Is it not possible for the Home Secretary and the Attorney-General jointly to give an assurance to the country that from now—from half-past nine o'clock to-night—no man or woman will be dragged away by police officers in this irresponsible manner, for any examination or investigation?

Mr. MACKINDER: May I also ask if, when the statement was obtained from the lady in question, a copy of it was given to her? I should also like to know what was the method of getting the statement. I remember when I was 11 or 12 years of age signing a statement covering many foolscap sheets, of which I only signed the last sheet. Is it the case that when a statement has been extracted from any person forcibly or has been given voluntarily, the person concerned gets a copy of the statement so as to refresh his or her memory later on; and is it the case that only the last page is signed, making it possible for other pages to be substituted?

Mr. BROMLEY: The suggestion has been made in the course of this Debate that these police officers should be suspended pending an inquiry. May I ask, before acceding to that suggestion, that he should consider seriously whether it would not be unjust to suspend anyone from their duty before they have been proved to be at fault.

Mr. GROVES: As one who believes that this House exists to defend the liberties of the citizens of this country, I am surprised that neither the Home Secretary nor the Attorney-General has denounced the manner in which this girl was taken to Scotland Yard. I believe that it is an invasion of the rights of the citizens of this country and that we ought to protest against it.

Mr. THURTLE: I will put my point in two sentences, and it is directed to my friends on the Front Bench below me as well as to the right hon. Gentleman opposite. It is in regard to the composition of the court of inqury. I would draw the attention of the Home Secretary to the fact that throughout the country, though there is great confidence in our Judges, there is a feeling that, even so far as the highest Judges are concerned, in the last resort they tend to
lean towards the Executive. I would like this point to be borne in mind when this inquiry is considered.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: In regard to the latter question, I have told my right hon. Friend opposite that I will consult him on the terms of the inquiry, and I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon) will be willing to help us. I should be glad to have a meeting with him, and we might discuss the terms of reference. With regard to the Commissioners who will hold the inquiry, I think it undesirable to discuss that point now, but I will discuss it with my two right hon. Friends.

Mr. MARDY JONES: With regard to the proposed tribunal, I would seriously suggest that a woman should be a member. There is a woman at stake, and more than half the population is of the female sex.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I think it undesirable at the moment to go further than I have done. I will discuss it with the right hon. Gentlemen opposite. With regard to the point raised by the right hon. Gentleman for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George), he will understand that I cannot give a definite answer without consulting the Treasury, but I will put it before them with a great deal of sympathy. With regard to the question asked about the statement made by Miss Savidge at Scotland Yard, that statement was signed by her and initialed by her on every one of the pages.

Mr. A. HENDERSON: Was she given a copy?

Sir W. JOY1NSON-HICKS: She was not given a copy. Her solicitors have written asking for one, and they will, of course, get one.

Commander BELLAIRS: In whose possession is it now?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Here, in my possession. A suggestion was made that I should rise in my place and denounce the way the lady was dragged—

Mr. GROVES: I did not say "dragged."

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I have thought it was desirable, as these statements have been made openly, that should read a paper containing the statement made by one of the welfare workers of the firm who was present on the occasion, and then I will ask the House to let me close, from the political point of view, the discussion in this matter, and let it be referred to a Committee. The statement is as follows:
On Tuesday, 15th May, about 1.50 p.m., Detective-Sergeant Clark called at the works at which Irene Savidge was employed. Detective-Sergeant Clark asked to see her.
He did not ask for her at the works, but asked the welfare worker if he might see Miss Savidge.
She was called into my office, where the officer asked her to go to Scotland Yard, where the inquiries were to be held. He suggested she should accompany him in the car. Miss Savidge said she was willing to go. I put the question to her whether she was quite wiling. She replied she was quite willing. No pressure was put upon her. She got her hat and coat, and left the works accompanied by a lady officer. I was present the whole time, and no request was made by her to be allowed to see anyone.'

Mr. HARDIE: If she had refused, what would have taken place?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: After the statements that were made I thought it only right that that statement should be made.

Mr. HARDIE: Am I not entitled, on behalf of the liberty of the individual, to an answer to my question.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The hon. Member will forgive me. I am nearly closing what I have to say.

Mr. HARDIE: I asked you a question which you would not answer. It is not fair.

Mr. SPEAKER: Order, order!

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I have spoken on the matter to the House more than I ought to have spoken. I have desired to answer every legitimate question. The matter has now got beyond the Parliamentary stage; the matter has got to the stage of a really solemn and important examination.

Mr. HARDIE: Were the police entitled to bring that lady, if she refused to go?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Most certainly not. The statement is absolutely unjustified from every point of view. They have no power to do it. I would now ask the House to allow the Motion to be withdrawn.

Question, "That this House do now adjourn," put, and negatived.

Orders of the Day — CURRENCY AND BANK NOTES BILL.

Again considered in Committee.

[Mr. JAMES HOPE in the Chair.]

Postponed Proceeding resumed on consideration of Clause 2.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I beg to move, in page 3, line 9, at the end, to insert the words:
(3) Any minute of the Treasury directing a reduction of the amount of the fiduciary note issue shall be laid forthwith before both Houses of Parliament.
I move this Amendment, which stands in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Peckham (Mr. Dalton). I should perhaps remind the Committee that Sub section (2) of Clause 2 deals with the power of the Treasury, on being requested by the Bank of England, to direct that the amount of the fiduciary note issued shall for such period as may be determined by the Treasury, after consultation with the Bank, be reduced by such amount as may be so determined. That is to say, it may be reduced below the figure of £260,000,000 at which the amount of the fiduciary issue is fixed. The result of the Amendment is this. In a later Clause of the Bill, Clause 8, the famous elastic Clause of the Bill by which the Bank is entitled to represent to the Treasury that it desires an extension of the fiduciary issue and, under certain circumstances, the Treasury is entitled to allow such extension. There is a Sub-section (3) which says that any minute of the Treasury authorising an increase of the fiduciary note issue under this Section shall be laid forthwith before both Houses of Parliament. The view that my hon. Friends and I take is that, as the Bill stands, if there is to be deflation, that is to be a private matter resting between the Bank and the Treasury, but, if there is to be what some people might
call inflation, an increase in the fiduciary issue, then at once that is to be laid before both Houses of Parliament. We cannot see, to use a colloquialism, why what is sauce for the goose should not be sauce for the gander, and, if we are to have this Minute laid before Parliament in the case of any desire to increase the issue, we think a similar provision should also be in existence with regard to any power to decrease it.
We have used words in the Amendment which are slightly different from the words that are already in the Bill in the third Sub-section of Clause 8, because the actual words employed in the earlier parts of the two Sub-sections are not precisely the same. So far as we could, we have endeavoured to use the right words, and I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War and to the others who are defending this Bill that this is an Amendment which they might just as well accept. It seems to me not in the smallest degree to conflict with any of the principles which they have endeavoured to embody in the Bill, and it would give a certain small amount of reassurance to those who want the thing to be dealt with along the right lines. It would give a certain amount of balance to the Bill which it lacks in its present form, and I hope very much that they will therefore meet us by accepting this very small amelioration of the position as we find it in the Bill at present.

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Major Elliot): The Amendment asks for what is in one sense a perfectly reasonable thing, that the people should know if a reduction is taking place, but I hope to assure the hon. Member for West Leicester (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence) that that will take place automatically. That will appear in the weekly returns, and therefore there is no question of this being done in any way secretly. As for the power, it is a power that has always been inherent in the Bank. It dates back to the Act of 1844, and, in fact, that power has never necessarily been the subject of consulting the Houses of Parliament. In the case of the increase of the note issue, at first sight it may appear that there is a difference between the two operations, in that the decrease is merely published in the weekly returns
while the increase is brought to the attention of Parliament by a Minute, laid on the Table of the House. The reason for that is that an increase presupposes that at the end of a certain time legislation may be necessary. Therefore, the attention of Parliament is called to it at as early a date as possible in view of the fact that legislation may possibly ensue.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: Do I understand that the weekly returns will show in both cases precisely the amounts of the full authorised increase in the one case and the full directed decrease in the other?

Major ELLIOT: Oh, yes, undoubtedly.

Mr. GILLETT: There is another point I want to put, and it is rather a peculiar one. The Clause under discussion gives the Bank, with the consent of the Treasury, power to reduce the figure of £260,000,000 which has been so far agreed to. Supposing that was done and the figure was altered to £250,000,000 and then in the course of time the Bank wanted to raise that figure again. You will find that Clause 8 only makes provision in the case of the Bank wanting to raise the figure back again right above £260,000,000.

The CHAIRMAN: That is a matter that could be raised on the Clause rather than on the Amendment.

Mr. GILLETT: Then I will ask it afterwards.

Amendment negatived.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. GILLETT: Suppose the figure is reduced to £250,000,000, and then, there is a change in the position, and the Bank wants to raise the figure to £255,000,000—if you turn to Clause 8, it means simply if the Bank want to raise it above £260,000,000—I want to know if anyone can tell me what the procedure is and whether the Bank will have power to raise it to £255,000,000 without in any way consulting anyone, or whether all the various procedure laid down in Clause 8 for raising the figure above £260,000,000 would also apply to raising it from £250,000,000 to £255,000,000. It seems to me as if between these two
Clauses there is a gap with no provision for going down and then wanting to return part of the way.

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I would like to ask a question with regard to the period to be determined by the Treasury. I understand the information will be given to the world as to the reduction in the weekly returns, but there will be no indication in the returns as to the period for which the Treasury has granted it. In what way could the House and the country be informed?

Major ELLIOT: If questions were addressed to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he would be able to indicate for what period it was to operate. As to the further point, whether or not, the maximum having been reduced, it could be expanded again without a Treasury Minute. Of course, as soon as a period which had been agreed between the Treasury and the bank expired, it would automatically revert to the £260,000,000, and therefore no Treasury Minute would be required.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: Suppose they fixed six months, and, before that time expired, some crisis arose which made it desirable to raise it back again earlier than they anticipated, either wholly or partly. I do not see any means of adjusting that, and I should be glad to have an explanation.

Mr. GILLETT: The crux seems to be if they wanted to go to £255,000,000. They might go back to £260,000,000, but I cannot see any provision for any figure in between.

Major ELLIOT: Oh, yes, the Subsection says:
The Treasury may at any time on being requested by the Bank, direct that the amount of fiduciary note issue shall for such period as may be determined by the Treasury, after consultation with the Bank, he reduced by such amount as may be so determined.
That refers to the figure of £260,000,000 that may be reduced.

Mr. GILLETT: But it is not reducing it, and as far as I can see, it does not say anything about it in the Bill.

Major ELLIOT: The figure of £255,000,000 is still the figure of £260,000,000 reduced by £5,000,000. Any figure up to the maximum can appear as
a reduction, and that is where it comes in. If it is over that, it needs to be explained. If it is under that, it is the figure of £260,000,000 reduced by a certain amount.

Mr. GILLETT: I certainly cannot see that in the Bill in any place. It is not in Clause 8, which says only:
If the Bank at any time represent to the Treasury that it is expedient that the amount of the fiduciary note issue shall be increased to some specified amount above two hundred and sixty million pounds …
That cannot possibly apply to any increase below that amount, and it does not say that that sum of £260,000,000 only holds unless this is operative, and therefore, unless the Government can point out some place in the Bill where that is specifically mentioned, I confess I am unable to follow the hon. and gallant Gentleman's explanation.

Major ELLIOT: I am very sorry if I had not made it clear. It is the point of having this fixed sum of £260,000,000, which acts as a minimum, and anything under that is a reduction of the fiduciary issue. Therefore, the words are not to be sought in Clause 8, but in Clause 2, which clearly states that
the Bank shall issue banknotes up to the amount … of two hundred and sixty million pounds.
Then in Sub-section (2) it states that
the Treasury may at any time on being requested by the Bank, direct that the amount of the fiduciary note issue"—
that is the £260,000,000—
may be … reduced.
If anything is issued under the £260,000,000, that is a reduction, and any figure up to the £260,000,000 does not mean laying a Minute, as proposed by Clause 8, and calling the attention of Parliament to the fact that the statutory fiduciary issue is being exceeded.

Mr. SNOWDEN: I do not think that covers quite clearly the point of my hon. Friend. There is a little more in it than the Under-Secretary has explained. As I understand it, what they are trying to get at is this: Suppose that the power given under this Clause is exercised, and that the fiduciary issue is reduced from £260,000,000 to £250,000,000; suppose that the Bank want to raise it to £255,000,000, would that be regarded as an application
to the Treasury for increasing the fiduciary issue, requiring all the procedure of six months' notice, and ultimately an appeal to Parliament, or can it be moved, as it were, anywhere between £250,000,000 and £260,000,000 without having to undergo all this procedure?

Major ELLIOT: That is the fact. It can be moved anywhere up to £260,000,000 without the procedure of Clause 8, and the procedure of Clause 8 begins to function only when a movement above £260,000,000 takes place.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: That is not in the Bill. The hon. Member may be right, but there is not a single word in the Bill which sustains his contention. There ought to be some words in the Bill explaining it at the end of Sub-section (2). I do not know where the power comes from; it is not provided in the Bill, unless it is just common sense. What I take the hon. Gentleman to mean is that if, before the expiry of the period referred to in Sub-section (2), the Bank changes this amount, and decides that it cannot go through the whole period, it will come to the Treasury; if there is no authorisation needed in the Bill for the Treasury to agree to the proposal, it does not say so, and we ought to understand where that authority rises.

Major ELLIOT: It seems to me that the power arises from Sub-section (1) in the words, "that the Bank shall issue." It would not have arisen if the hon. Member's Amendment had been carried, "that the Bank may issue." It is incumbent on the Bank to keep the circulation up to £260,000,000. If it is below that it is an exceptional case. It is like a spring; when the pressure is released, the thing goes automatically to £260,000,000.

Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

CLAUSE 3.—(Securities for note issue to be held in issue department.)

Mr. GILLETT: I beg to move, in page 3, line 13, after the word "department," to insert the words "commercial bills, bills of exchange on foreign firms, or."
The subject to which I want to draw the attention of the Committee is in relation to the cover that is to be held
against the fiduciary issue. The question of securities seems to have something rather mysterious about it, and I discovered, on making inquiries, that there is no public list of securities that are held against the present notes. I do not wish, in raising this point, to press the right hon. Gentleman to give any information which, I can well see, it might not be desirable should be given to the House. Recently a question was asked, and the Financial Secretary to the Treasury replied to it, in regard to the point whether bills could be held as cover against these notes. The answer was in the affirmative. I should like to ask the hon. Gentleman whether, when he said that, he meant that bills ever had been held? I should also have liked to ask him whether Treasury bills were included in the answer that he gave.
The point I had in mind, when I put down the first words in my Amendment dealing with hills, was the point I mentioned earlier in the Debate, that of having an issue that would be rather more elastic than the one suggested by the Government, and that could be covered by the bills. The principle has been decided virtually in the last vote, and about that part of the Amendment I do not propose to say any more. When I come to the second part, which deals with the question of the cover being partly in exchange on foreign firms, would ask if it is intended to adopt any of the practices carried out by other central banks in attempting to control the exchanges by some of the cover that they hold against their note issue? There have been several instances of banks that have recently come into existence. The bank in Austria, which was started under the control of the League of Nations, holds a certain amount of its cover for its notes in stable foreign currency. The Bank of Chile holds part of its cover in deposits in London and New York, so as to have a hold on the currencies of these two important centres. In Germany the cheques which are in foreign currencies are also recognised as part of the cover for notes and the bills of exchange on foreign firms of first-class standing recognised by the Minister of Finance for Italy, is included in the Italian
system of dealing with the cover for notes.
The answer which may be given to me is that this side of the problem has already been dealt with as part of the functions of the Bank of England. Of course, if that were the answer it would to a certain extent, so far as I am concerned, meet the argument which I am bringing forward; but on the other hand this custom has grown up in connection with central banks. I know another answer which may be given to me. It may be said that it is not a part of the functions of the Bank of England, and that the Bank of England and the Central Bank of New York are the two banks which cannot carry out what is being done by the other banking systems of the world, because the whole foundation of the idea of linking the central banks together, which is the holding of foreign currency by one bank so as to have a claim upon London and New York, is quite a different policy from the policy which would be followed out by either London itself or by New York; hut I cannot see any reason why we in London should not use part of this cover for the purpose at any rate of having some hold upon the currency of New York. That, of course, is a crucial position.
Another critical position, of course, is the French position, but having regard to the uncertainty with regard to the whole position of the franc, I am not prepared to say that it is at all possible, as things are at present in relation to French currency, to try to guard against unexpected claims upon our gold. But it seems to me a supremely important question, intimately connected with the idea of trying to prevent a needless rise in the bank rate. That is the object which I want to bring forward before the Committee this evening, and on those grounds I move my Amendment. Possibly I may be allowed to have some information which may satisfy us that this matter is at any rate before the Bank, or that the Government have satisfied themselves on the point which I have raised.

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: This Amendment is really unnecessary. I am not out of sympathy with the desire of the hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. Gillett); but the term "securities" is sufficiently wide to cover commercial bills
in the way that he desires. I do not want to accept the Amendment, because I do not want to limit the nature of the securities to be held; I want to leave that entirely to the discretion of the Bank of England, unfettered by legislation so far as is possible. There is only one limitation in this Clause, and that is the limitation that £5,500,000 worth of silver can be treated as part of the securities for this issue; and the other provision is that the Bank shall inform the Treasury of the securities held. The actual words are in Sub-section (3):
The Bank shall from time to time give to the Treasury such information as the Treasury may require with respect to the securities held in the issue department.
It is most desirable, and is consonant with the terms of the Genoa Resolution, that the Government of the day should not dictate in this matter to the Bank as to the duty of providing securities against the fiduciary note issue, subject only to informing the Bank from time to time of the nature of those securities.

Mr. GILLETT: May I ask one question by way of explanation? As I understand, the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War says that bills can be held, but the second part of my Amendment is an attempt to ensure that bills may be held in foreign currencies. Does the right hon. Gentleman mean that that can also be done?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON - EVANS: Certainly. They are both covered by the term "securities."

Major HILLS: I quite agree with what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War has said; the term "securities" would, under the legal interpretation of the word, cover bills of exchange. But he and I started life in the same profession, and in that profession the word "securities" used in a trust deed has been interpreted by the Court, and I do not think that any interpretation of the legal meaning of "securities" has been given which would be wide enough to cover bills of exchange. I quite agree with the hon. Gentleman opposite, that this power ought to be given, and I also think that if it is included, words which expressly mention bills might be held to exclude something
else. I think it is the case that the Federal Reserve Banks of America all have power to hold bills as part of their reserve; but I hope that my right hon. Friend is quite clear that "securities" would include it, because it is quite possible that the financial construction of "securities" may be rather different from the lawyer's construction. My right hon. Friend left the law perhaps just about as long ago as I did, but if he will carry his mind back I think he will remember that the Courts have always interpreted "securities" rather on the narrow line, as meaning money secured upon something, and upon something rather tangible. Perhaps he will look into the matter between now and the Report stage?

10.0 p.m.

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I am advised, and quite definitely advised, that "securities" does cover bills of exchange, but as my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Ripon (Major Hills) has raised the question, I will certainly endeavour to be fortified in that matter. I will not say before the Report stage, but there is always another stage when it is possible to make any Amendment, that may be required.

Mr. RUNCIMAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman quite right in thinking that another place can insert Amendments of this kind, except by the consent of this House? It is quite obvious, I think, what the intention of the Government is: They want to include commercial bills, and they have very good reason for it. We have in recent times seen commercial bills maintain their value when Government stocks have gone down, and gone down severely. If that is the intention, I hope that full provision will be made for it.

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I am also told that it would be quite in order for another place to make an Amendment to this Bill if required.

Mr. RUNCIMAN: Am I not right in suggesting that another place has no right to interfere in matters of this kind without the consent of the House of Commons? It is the House of Commons that will have to decide.

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Obviously the House of Commons will have to assent.

Mr. GILLETT: In view of the promise given, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. PETHICK - LAWRENCE: Upon that question I should like to ask this. The gold exchange standard was recommended with a view to enabling foreign countries to deal with their trade balances without withdrawing gold from one another to the extent to which they would otherwise require to withdraw it. I should like to know how far, having regard to the form of this Clause, the right hon. Gentleman the Minister for War considers that that provision has in any way been met?

Major HILLS: Before my right hon. Friend answers that question, may I ask one more question? Why is any amount of silver coin included, and why is the figure fixed at £5,500,000?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: There are two questions. The first question with regard to the Genoa Resolution. The hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. Gillett) will remember that this Clause deals solely with the fiduciary issue and the securities to be held against the fiduciary issue; it in no sense deals with the other classes of note, which are fully covered by gold. That question does not arise on this Clause. With regard to the other question, which is why £5,500,000 was included, £5,500,000 exists as silver coinage; and that is the residue of the still larger sum—I think a sum of more than £7,000,000—which was taken over by the Government when silver coinage became redundant some time ago. During 1919 and the years of the boom, there was a large demand for silver; the Government of the day was caught short, and silver was created, and created to an extent which is now redundant. The silver will gradually go back into circulation as trade revives and the demand increases, and, meanwhile, it is being held as security for the note issue. It is quite a good security for the fiduciary note issue, for, after all, it is token money for which the Government is responsible. It is a Government security and equally valuable for the purpose.

Major HILLS: It will not permanently be there?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Oh, no.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I am very much obliged for the explanation. I gather from it that the proposals at Genoa with regard to the gold exchange standard are definitely excluded from this Bill and that an amendment of this Bill will have to be made in order to implement those proposals should we wish to implement them at any time?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: That is not quite right. It really is not strictly in order to discuss that point here, because we are now dealing with the fiduciary part of the note issue and not with that part of the note issue which will be secured by gold.

Sir H. YOUNG: I think the opinion ought to be recorded on this occasion, and I do not understand that the Secretary for War will disagree with it, that this is an undesirable form of security against the fiduciary portion of the note issue. Silver is not legal tender in large quantities, and it is looked upon not as a security but as a commodity. I think this Bill ought to have included provisions for the regular and enforced reduction of this holding against the fiduciary issue; but as the Secretary of State has implied in his observations that the silver holding is to be reduced as and when occasion serves, I think the provision should be allowed to pass.

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I have not the least objection to repeating that that is the intention.

Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

Clause 4 (Transfer of currency note issue to Bank of England) ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 5.—(Transfer to Bank of certain part of assets of Currency Note Redemption Account.)

Mr. GILLETT: I beg to move, in line 20, to leave out Sub-section (3).
The Committee will remember that the amount of securities at present held by the Government against the note issue is estimated to be in excess of the requirements that will be needed for covering
the £260,000,000 by about £13,000,000, a suns of money which, I understand, has been accumulated during the years the issue has been in existence as cover against any depreciation that might take place in the stocks. Now that the issue is to be handed over to the Bank of England this hidden reserve, for that is what it practically becomes, is set at liberty, and it is not surprising that the eagle eye of the Chancellor, looking for any kind of reserve, has lighted upon this. In the Budget statement the Chancellor of the Exchequer first set aside a sum of £50,000,000 for sinking fund, and then raised it to £65,000,000, stating that the larger part of the extra £15,000,000 would come from this £13,000,000 which he was going to take out of what is really a hidden reserve. It is a very good piece of specious window-dressing by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but it really is nothing more. It is what is often done in private firms. A private firm has accumulated a certain sum of money in what is called hidden reserves, and when it takes it out and puts it into its balance sheet everyone says it has made £10,000 or £20,000 more. As a matter of fact, anybody who knows the inner history knows that the position of the firm may be exactly the same. What the Chancellor of the Exchequer seems to be doing is saying to the public, "We have arranged a sinking fund of £65,000,000 and we are going to have the benefit of £65,000,000." As a matter of fact he has done nothing of the sort, because this £13,000,000, it is presumed, is already invested in some kind of security.
The first point I wish to make is this. The Government have to invest a certain amount of the sinking fund in special definite stocks. Are there none of these securities held amongst the £260,000,000 or £270,000,000 of cover? Are there none of the stocks in which the money has specially to be invested in that category? If so, why does the Government take power so very definitely to say, first, that the stock must be sold and then that something else will have to be bought? First you sell a stock and then you buy it. It seems to me you might actually sell the very stock you wish to invest money in in regard to the Sinking Fund, and no provision is made for a simple book-keeping entry that might have pre-
vented those various transactions. The other point I wish to raise with regard to the importance of the Sinking Fund is that while there is a saving in the interest the real advantage of the Sinking Fund is the fact that you are bringing a new demand for a definite stock into the stock market. If you are selling with one hand and buying with the other there is no advantage whatever, and therefore I suggest that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is only juggling with things, and that the Sinking Fund for this year is only £50,000,000, and that the rest of his proposal is in keeping with much of his other finance, quite unsound and a pure fallacy and in no way adequate to the actual financial position.

Mr. SAMUEL: I think my hon. Friend is under something of a misapprehension. The Currency Note Redemption Account is separate and entirely apart from the revenue account. It is not a book-keeping entry. When the securities which are held as cover for our fiduciary note issue came to be reckoned up it was known that they were worth more by £13,200,000 than the amount necessary to cover the fiduciary Treasury note issue. That being so the Chancellor has taken them and put them aside for paying off debt. I do not think the hon. Member realises that it is a separate fund.

Mr. GILLETT: What the hon. Member said is exactly the position.

Mr. SAMUEL: As a surplus amount accumulated out of earnings on the securities which cover the fiduciary issue, it is taken out and appears on page 18 of Financial Statement H.C. 62 in the form of special receipts amounting to £13,200,000. Adding the £800,000,of which the hon. Gentleman knows, makes the £14,000,000. This £14,000,000 added to £51,000,000 makes £65,000,000, and that £65,000,000 forms the Sinking Fund. If this Amendment becomes operative this curious paradox will occur, that the £13,200,000 worth of securities in the hands of the Government will remain in the hands of the Government without any direction as to what we are to do with them. We therefore ask the permission of the House to do what we desire, to carry this money from the Treasury Note Redemption Fund, so that it may be transferred from there into the general revenue and then operate as part of the Sinking Fund.

Amendment negatived.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 6.—(Profits of note issue to be paid to Treasury.)

Mr. GILLETT: I beg to move, in page 4, line 39, at the end, to insert the words, "and a copy of every agreement so made shall be presented to Parliament."
This Clause deals with the profits of the note issues to be paid to the Treasury. I should like to ask for some information as to what it is estimated the total expenses of the note issue will be under the new circumstances. It used to be put down at about £6,000,000, and the expenditure borne by the Board of Inland Revenue amounted to something like £350,000. I want to know if we can have any indication as to what it is expected that the expenses will be so that we may have some idea as to what the income will be. We want to know whether the profits will remain as much as they were before. I move this Amendment in order that we may be made acquainted with the agreement which has been made, and the actual terms that have been arranged with the Bank of England. I do not see why the Committee should not be informed as to what are the actual conditions, and that is the reason why I am moving this Amendment.

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: This Amendment provides that a copy of every agreement so made shall be presented to Parliament. May I point out that the actual result is put before Parliament, because it comes into the finance accounts, and therefore is subject to the ordinary criticisms of the House of Commons. The agreement contemplated under this Clause is one come to by the parties concerned, and it accounts for the expenditure and the profits. Really this will be an agreement of accounts

Division No. 131.]
AYES.
[10.21 p.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Buchanan, G.
Greenall, T.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Cape, Thomas
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Charleton, H. C.
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)


Ammon, Charles George
Cluse, W. S.
Groves, T.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Connolly, M.
Grundy, T. W.


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Cove, W. G.
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)


Baker, Walter
Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)


Barr, J.
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Handle, George D.


Batey, Joseph
Day, Harry
Hayday, Arthur


Broad, F. A.
Duncan, C.
Hayes, John Henry


Bromley, J.
Gibbins, Joseph
Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Gillett, George M.
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Graham, D. M. (Lanark. Hamilton)
Hirst, G. H.

between the accountants on the one side, and the accountants on the other, and it is an agreement which is not capable of being laid before Parliament in the sense of a written document. The result will come before Parliament in the finance accounts, and therefore this Amendment seems to be entirely unnecessary. The hon. Member asked me a question about the expenses. I may say that the expenses are likely to be a little more because better paper will be used for the issue, but the Government expect that the net result will be a gain of £250,000 a year. The whole of the net profit on the issue of fiduciaries will be payable to the Government.

Mr. GILLET: Does that mean that we shall be told that the net receipts are £6,000,000, or that we shall be told that the receipts are so much and the amount paid to the Bank is so much? Does it mean that particulars will be given or only the final result?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I am not quite sure what form it takes in the accounts, but I am certain that if the hon. Gentleman, seeing the form of the accounts, wants to ask questions, he will not fail to elicit the information for which he has asked.

Mr. GILLETT: There is no information given at the present time, as far as I know.

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Oh, yes, there is.

Mr. GILLETT: Not in the accounts.

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Yes; I understand that it is given in the financial account.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 112: Noes, 216.

Hirst, w. (Bradford, South)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Hollins, A.
Pethick-Lawrence, F. w.
Sullivan, Joseph


Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Ponsonby, Arthur
Sutton, J. E.


Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Potts, John S.
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plalstow)


John, William (Rhondda, West)
Purcell, A. A.
Thurtie, Ernest


Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Tinker, John Joseph


Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Ritson, J.
Tomlinson, R. P.


Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Rose, Frank H.
Varley, Frank B.


Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter
Viant, S. P.


Kelly, W. T.
Saklatvala, Shapurji
Wallhead, Richard C.


Kennedy, T.
Scurr, John
Watson, W. M. (Duntermline)


Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Sexton, James
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Kirkwood, D.
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)
Wellock, Wilfred


Lawson, John James
Shinwell, E.
Welsh, J. C.


Lee, F.
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


Lindley, F. W.
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John
Whiteley, W.


Lunn, William
Sitch, Charles H.
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Mackinder, W.
Slesser, Sir Henry H.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Smillie, Robert
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Maxton, James
Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley)
Windsor, Walter


Montague, Frederick
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Murnin, H.
Snell, Harry



Oliver, George Harold
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Palln, John Henry
Stamford, T. W.
Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. A. Barnes.


Paling, W.
Stephen, Campbell





NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Kindersley, Major G. M.


Ainsworth, Lieut-Col. Charles
Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)
King, Commodore Henry Douglas


Albery, Irving James
Elliot, Major Walter E.
Knox, Sir Alfred


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Ellis, R. G.
Lamb, J. Q.


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Fanshawe, Captain G. D.
Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Fielden, E. B.
Little, Dr. E. Graham


Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.
Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Forrest, W.
Locker-Lampson, Com.O. (Handsw'th)


Balniel, Lord
Foster, Sir Harry S.
Loder, J. de V.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Fremantie, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Looker, Herbert William


Barnett, Major Sir Richard
Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony
Lougher, Lewis


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Ganzoni, Sir John.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon
Gates, Percy
Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman


Bennett, A. J.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Lynn, Sir R. J.


Berry, Sir George
Gower, Sir Robert
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen


Bethel, A.
Grace, John
Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)


Betterton, Henry B.
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Grant, Sir J. A.
MacIntyre, Ian


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
McLean, Major A.


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter
Macmillan, Captain H.


Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm


Brass, Captain W.
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
MacRobert, Alexander M.


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Grotrian, H. Brent
Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Makins, Brigadier-General E.


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Hacking, Douglas H.
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.


Brown,Brig.-Gen.H.C.(Berks, Newb'y)
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Mason, Colonel Glyn K.


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)
Meller, R. J.


Burman, J. B.
Hamilton, Sir George
Meyer, Sir Frank


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Hammersley, S. S.
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)


Butt, Sir Alfred
Harland, A.
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Harrison, G. J. C.
Nelson, Sir Frank


Carver, Major W. H.
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)


Cassels, J. D.
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Oakley, T.


Cayzer, Maj.Sir Herbt.R.(Prtsmth, C)
Haslam, Henry C.
O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Oman, Sir Charles William C.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Henderson, Capt. R. R.(Oxf'd, Henley)
Penny, Frederick George


Christle, J. A.
Henderson, Lieut.-Col. Sir Vivian
Perkins, Colonel E. K.


Churchman, Sir Arthur C
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Pilcher, G.


Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Power, Sir John Cecil


Colman, N. C. D.
Hills, Major John Waller
Pownall, Sir Assheton


Conway, Sir W. Martin
Hilton, Cecil
Preston, William


Cooper, A. Duff
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. C.
Price, Major C. W. M.


Cope, Major William
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Raine, Sir Walter


Couper, J. B.
Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)
Ramsden, E.


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Hopkins, J. W. W.
Reid, D. D. (County Down)


Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)
Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.
Rice, Sir Frederick


Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)
IIiffe, Sir Edward M.
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H,
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell


Dalkeith, Earl of
Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)
Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.


Davidson, Major-General Sir John H.
James, Lieut-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Davies, Maj. Geo.F.(Somerset,Yeovil)
Jephcott, A. R.
Rye, F. G.


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Salmon, Major I.


Dean, Arthur Wellesley
Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Drewe, C.
Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)




Sandeman, N. Stewart
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Sanders, Sir Robert A.
Tasker, R. Inigo.
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.
Templeton, W. P.
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Savery, S. S.
Thom, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Litchfield)


Sheffield, Sir Berkeley
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Shepperson, E. W.
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)
Withers, John James


Skelton, A. N.
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-
Wolmer, Viscount


Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dlne, c.)
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of
Womersley, W. J.


Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement
Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)


Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.
Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'dge & Hyde)


Sprot, Sir Alexander
Ward, Lt.-Col. A.L. (Kingston-on-Hull)
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.
Warner, Brigadier-General w. W.
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Stanley, Lord (Fylde)
Warrender, Sir Victor
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)
Waterhouse, Captain Charles
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (Norwich)


Steel, Major Samuel Strang
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)



Storry-Deans, R.
Wells, S. R.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Streatfeild, Captain S. R.
White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dairymple.
Captain Margesson and Captain




Wallace.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 7 (Amendment of Section 6 of 55 & 56 Vict. c. 48) ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 8.—(Power to increase amount of fiduciary note issue.)

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I beg to move, in page 5, to leave out from the word "aforesaid" in line 23, to the end of line 24.
We have now reached what is really the most important. Clause in the Bill and one on which there is a very wide measure of controversy touching its provisions. There are two Amendments in my name and it will probably be to the convenience of the Committee if we discus them simultaneously, moving the second formally and taking a vote on it.

The CHAIRMAN: I think that will be a convenient course.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: This is the Clause that gives the alleged elasticity to the Bank, with the concurrence of the Treasury, to extend the fiduciary issue by a figure of £260,000,000, but this permission is limited by the Clause in two very vital respects. In the first place the permission, which can be given by the Treasury for any specified amount, is limited in the matter of time so that the period during which this extension may be permitted cannot exceed six months, or some shorter period which the Treasury may think proper. I should, perhaps, say that the Treasury can from time to time extend this period if it thinks desirable, but not beyond the period of two years. This condition for extension is limited in two ways. In the first place, it can only be given by the Treasury for six months,
and that can be extended for a further period of six months up to a maximum of two years from the start, after which it becomes subject to the further limitation that this cannot extend beyond the two years, except provided that
no such authority shall be renewed so as to remain in force (Whether with or without variation) after the expiration of a period of two years from the date on which it was originally given, unless Parliament otherwise determines.
So that in the Clause, as it stands, first the Treasury may give power to extend for six months, and that can go on for two years, and after that Parliament has itself to sanction the extension beyond that period. The first Amendment that we are proposing is to leave out the period of six months so that the Treasury, if the Amendment be carried, can give, in the first instance, permission to extend this amount so as not to limit it. Should the Treasury take that step, the second Amendment relieves the Bank and the Treasury of the necessity of going to Parliament at the end of the two years. Therefore, if the first Amendment be carried alone, the result will be that the Treasury will give consent to extend the issue for two years, at the end of which time it will come to Parliament. If, in addition to that, the second Amendment be carried, then the effect will be that the Treasury will give permission to extend and it will not be limited in time at all. Finally, should the Committee reject the first Amendment and accept the second, it will mean that the Treasury can continue indefinitely to go on giving permission for the amount to go beyond £260,000,000. Whether we are for these Amendments or against them, and in whatever part of the Committee we sit, we are all really aware that it is the spirit and
not the letter of this provision that is the more important.
If this Clause were to stand in its present form and the Bank, Treasury and future Parliaments were all to act in one way, that would be far more important than if we made certain modifications in the Clause, freeing some of the restraints which it at present contains. Nevertheless, though that be true, I think that the actual terms of these Amendments are of some considerable importance, because they will give an indication to future Courts of the Bank and future Treasuries of what the House intended when this Act was passed. I think, therefore, that if we carry these Amendments we shall impart into the Bill a different idea of the meaning of Clause 8 than if we leave it standing as it is at the present time.
Hon. Members in all parts of the Committee have raised the issue of the elasticity of the Clause. Is it intended to apply it to emergencies only, or can it be used, or is it intended to be used as a permanent means of increasing the fiduciary issue if experience indicates that that is desirable? In spite of the interpretation that has been given by several hon. Members opposite, I have no doubt that in its present form the object of the Clause is to give temporary relief in a case where the needs of the currency are pressing, and to give temporary relief only. As it stands, I think that will be the interpretation. The Secretary of State for War discussed this Clause at some length on the Second Reading of the Bill, and referred to the various occasions on which it might be brought into operation. He dealt with certain crises that had occurred during the last century, and indicated that if similar crises were likely to occur in future this Clause would prevent a panic and anticipate the crisis. As far as that is concerned, I do not think there is much that need be said.
He also dealt with a second possibility, which has been referred to by more than one hon. Member, and that was the case of a sudden foreign demand. He pointed out that it would be the duty of the Treasury, on application from the Bank, to meet this emergency, providing there was a sufficient foreign demand for gold to put the Bank into a position of some
unpleasantness. Supposing there was not one big foreign demand for gold, but that what actually took place was a demand for gold coming from abroad which consisted of a number of small movements in that direction. Not one of these demands might be sufficient in the opinion of the Bank of England to justify their coming to the Treasury, and not one of them might be sufficient to lead the Treasury to consider that it was adequate ground for granting a request for an increase of currency; yet in the aggregate they would have a considerable effect. What will be the procedure in such an event?
The Bank of England will be confronted with this quite formidable demand. It will decide that by a very little screwing down of the position, it can meet the occasion. A little later there will be a further demand on the Bank, which they may not consider adequate for the making of a demand for an increase of the currency, and their going through all the paraphernalia required in Clause 8, and again they will limit credit, and restrict the activities of industry, in order to meet, the demand. It seems to me quite likely that the effect of that in the aggregate will be very grave, because these steps would follow one upon another. It is quite possible that the Bank which never adequately realises the grave effect upon industry in this country by the restriction of credit and the lowering of prices, will put on the screw, little by little, and produce very grave effects upon the country.
My view, therefore, of the effect of this Clause as it stands is that it goes away from the proposals put forward at the Genoa Conference, and it would be much better if the Government had really implemented the Genoa proposals instead of attempting to deal with it in this way. In the next place, the right hon. Gentleman dealt with another possible difficulty. He said that there might be a scramble for gold by the central banks. In regard to that I want to say, first, that it seems to me that the proposal in this Bill is in itself an unnecessary demand for gold by the Bank of England. The example we are setting here is a bad one, and one which I think will have deleterious effect upon the
international situation. I have dealt already with that point to some extent and, therefore, I do not mean to deal with it again except to say this that what the right hon. Gentleman said was:
Should the Bank of England find that, owing to a world demand for gold, credit would be unduly restricted, not as a check on speculation, but to the injury of legitimate requirements, then the Bank can request the Treasury to extend the fiduciary issue and so free gold in the hands of the Bank for further credit operations."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th May, 1928; col. 745. Vol. 217.]
It may be that they will take that course, but I fear very much, if this Clause is left in its present form, that they might easily do something else. Suppose they did adopt the procedure in this Clause. The essence of the structure is that it is a temporary expansion. Is it not exceedingly probable that they will begin to restrict credit with a view to getting back, through deflation, to a position where they no longer need the assistance of the Treasury in this matter? I fear that this will be the effect. Then we come, finally, to what is the gravest matter of all, and that is the question of industrial expansion. It has been said many times during these Debates that there is a possibility of a revival of trade. We hope it is much more than a possibility and that we shall see a large proportion of the million unemployed absorbed in industry. If that happens there will be a demand for much more cash, and that demand will be reflected in a desire for more currency. The right hon. Gentleman himself visualised this and he said:
It may be that in the course of the years to come with an increased population, and as we hope, much greater employment, greater earnings, greater expenditure and a higher standard of comfort for the people, the currency of the country will require permanent expansion. The provision in the Bill to increase the fiduciary issue is not intended, therefore, to be a mere legislative substitute for the crisis letter. On the contrary, it is intended to be used not in a crisis but before it and to prevent undue stringency arising from any of the causes I have mentioned."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th May, 1928; cols. 745–46; Vol.217.]
Not during the crisis but before it. I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman to explain whether that phrase "not in a crisis but before it" applies to the question of industrial expansion. If it does, then he is not really meeting the suggestion the point that is at stake.
With us it is not a question of a crisis at all. We anticipate—the Committee as a whole, I am sure, anticipate—that when the revival of industry comes, it will not be in the form of a crisis. It will be a steady growth which may extend over a considerable period. It is not, therefore, a matter of providing for a crisis when it arises. It is a matter of taking care that when industry at last sprouts up again we shall have a currency that is capable of keeping pace with it and that it shall not be cut down by a bankers' frost. If that is to be so, then the elasticity provided for in the Clause will not be a temporary affair dealing with emergencies. It will have to be a permanent increase of the currency, without any intention of going back at some early date to a smaller amount.
That brings us, I think, to the second Amendment and to the question of bringing the matter before Parliament at the end of two years. I am not quite clear as to the precise form in which Parliament would have to deal with the matter, but it seems to me that it will have to be done by Statute—either by a separate Act brought in and carried through all its stages, or, at least, a separate provision in a Finance Bill which for all practical purposes is really the same thing. But I imagine that it would not be by a simple Resolution of the House. To carry through an important and controversial Measure of that character would require considerable time. We all know that Governments resist any encroachment on their time, and it would very likely be found difficult to take such a step as that. Therefore, I think there would be a very great obstacle to effecting the permanent extension of the note issue, which even the right hon. Gentleman himself realises is of profound importance if the revival of industry is not to be checked the moment is begins.
Finally I put this point. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] I know hon. Members are impatient, but this is a very important matter which will affect industry for years to come, and while I may have taken up a long time, I do not think there should be any complaint on that score. The right hon. Gentleman says that is is quite a mistake to imagine that this is an emergency proposal; that on the face of it, it is temporary but that in practice it can be removed. I would
remind the right hon. Gentleman, however, that his obiter dictum does not settle the matter. What the Bank and the Treasury and Parliament will look to in the future, is not the particular statement on this Bill of the right hon. Gentleman—important as that may be—but the terms of the Act itself. If the Act is carried in this form, they will find that this is, apparently at any rate, a temporary provision and they will be guided by that fact. Some Members no doubt will say that public opinion will prove too strong for the Bank. It may be that the Bank, and possibly the Treasury, mean to use this only as a temporary emergency measure; but when the time comes and when industry begins to recover, public opinion will be too strong to allow the Banks to take that course and they will be compelled to use it in a more liberal sense.
I am afraid that I cannot accept that view, and for the reason that the Bank act rather subtly and almost secretly, and it is very difficult for the ordinary man or woman, either employer or employed, to realise that owing to some slight action by the Bank their troubles, which extend in the aggregate to millions of pounds and hundred thousands of unemployed, are really due to that cause. It is something like keeping a bird in a cage. The bird tends to grow and the cage is very small, and it does not exactly complain against its cage, but it mopes and finally dies. I feel that if the Bank and the Treasury feel so disposed they will use these powers that are given them in this Act and will not use the provisions which this Clause theoretically enables them to use, and British industry "cabin'd and confin'd" by the monetary proposals of the Bill, will droop and die. It is because I want to see it clearly set out in this Clause that it is not a mere emergency provision, but a means of enlarging, if necessary permanently—as the right hon. Gentleman himself said—the note issue of this country, that I formally move the first of the two Amendments standing in my name, and that I shall subsequently move the later one dealing with the further period of the proposals before Parliament.

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: This Amendment has been the peg on which
the hon. Gentleman has hung a very interesting speech, which went a good deal further than the Amendments themselves. I do not propose to re-discuss the provisions for elasticity in Clause 8. I discussed them at length on the Second Reading, and the hon. Gentleman has done me the honour of quoting a good deal of what I said on that occasion, and has reminded the Committee of the arguments with which I supported the Clause. I would like to say one word about his conception of the action of the Bank of England. He seems to fear that it is a reasonable supposition that the Bank will so use its monetary powers as to restrict trade and throw people out of work. He seems to think that they might do that maliciously.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: No.

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Well, if not maliciously, then ignorantly, without appreciation of the vast harm and sorrow that they would create among large numbers of working people. I do not for a moment believe that they could do such a thing ignorantly, and certainly I do not believe that they would do it maliciously.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: They are doing it at this time.

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: They are experts, and they have experts advising them on this very currency question. We are determining as a House to put the currency and credit policy of this country into their hands, and I am sure, when we are making that a major determination, we need have no fear that they would do it ignorantly in carrying out that policy. Let me look at the other side of that proposition. There are times, I suppose the hon. Member would admit, when restriction is necessary and salutary and not only desirable in the interests of bankers, but also desirable in the interests of industry and the people employed in industry, because unless a check is put on it at the right moment, industry suffers and those employed suffer also. The hon. Member must remember therefore, that this credit power is one of the most delicate and one of the strongest instruments, and he must not consider that the Bank through ignorance or malice would use it against the industrial people of this country. Let me deal with the Amendment itself. I am very surprised that the hon. Gentleman, with the
views that he holds, should move these Amendments, because the result of both these Amendments, if they are carried, will be this: The Bank could ask for an extension of the fiduciary limit and the Treasury and the Bank could agree to a permanent increase of that limit, without coming to Parliament or even reporting the matter to Parliament.
That is the effect of the Amendment. I believe the Government have chosen a much better middle course, namely, that of saying that the Bank can go to the Treasury and make a case and, if the Treasury agrees, the Treasury can agree to an extension of the fiduciary issue for six months. With the experience gained in those six months they can either reduce it or increase it, or continue the increase for a period not exceeding two years, and before the end of the two years, with the experience gained Parliament will have the last word. The Amendment is to cut out the last word by Parliament and it would deprive Parliament and this House of any check on the amount of the increases of the fiduciary issue. I do not ask that so wide a power should be given to the Bank and to the Treasury, but I do ask that the power that is given in this Clause should be given, and I believe that if it is used in the way that I contemplated when I spoke on the Second Reading, it should form an instrument which will prevent any undue restriction.

Mr. W. BAKER: The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War is really surprising in his attitude on this particular Amendment, having regard to the attitude which he took up on the Second Reading. As I understood his position then, it was that our desire for greater State control over matters of finance and currency was to be condemned, and yet here to-night he is pleading that the currency shall be subjected to the review of this House of Commons at frequent intervals, whenever the necessity for an increase arises. It seems to me that these two points of view cannot possibly be reconciled. As an actual fact we on this side of the House believe that the great need of this nation in recent years has been a greater supply of currency. I am not going to charge the director of the Bank of England with ignorance, because it would ill become me to do so. I am not
claiming to-night to have any great knowledge of this subject, but what I do say, as I endeavoured to tell the Committee earlier in the discussion, is that eminent bankers and economists are agreed that we need a currency which shall be increased or decreased in relation to an index based upon production and on prices, in order that the supply of currency may have a proper relation to economic factors. The right hon. Gentleman says that the Government are taking a middle course. In matters of this sort I venture to submit that middle courses are not likely to be correct courses. If eminent men in the financial world are able to recommend to the Government a means whereby they can closely relate their finance and their currency to the industrial and economic problems of the day, then I say that the Government would be well advised to take that course, even if it be an extreme course.
11.0 p.m.
My information is that the world's potential power of production is altogether in excess of the world's power to consume, and the difference between our potential production and the possible markets is held by the highest authorities to be due to our old-fashioned and antiquated financial methods. This Clause is purely temporary in character. So far as I can see, there is no provision for normal growth and expansion. It is, in fact, an experiment which may be continued for two years, and at the end of every such period, you introduce the State interference, to which the Government claim to object so strongly. I should like to ask the Secretary of State for War if, when this Bill has become an Act, he will advise the Government to appoint an inquiry into the whole question of the relation between currency and production, in order, whilst we have been compelled to accept this Measure at the moment, there may be a reasonable possibility, in the interest not of the Labour party, but of the whole industrial and commercial life of this country, to find a satisfactory way of relating currency to production.

Mr. GILLETT: I confess after listening once again to the right hon. Gentleman, that I am only confirmed in the conclusion which I came to the other day, that, in practice, this Clause will be used
in an emergency, and not in the way for which we have been arguing in the discussion to-day. It is more intended for crises, than for the ordinary expansion of trade. I cannot help thinking that the policy of the Bank in recent years tends to confirm that belief. We do not really clearly understand, at the present time, how far Parliament will have to be asked to confirm any of the actions that are taken. The real point that has been raised by the right hon. Gentleman may be said to be that we are placing this matter in the hands of the Bank of England as experts. That is where the fundamental point of difference comes between us. It is not that we are throwing any reflection on the Bank of England, but finance, like everything else, is a thing which you can look at from the standpoint of the expert, or from some other standpoint. If we were to put the control of the Air Force into the hands of the experts of the Air Force, in time, we should be presented with a Bill infinitely larger than the House would be prepared to pay. We do not put anything fully into the hands of the experts. We take their advice, and then consider how far it is possible to adjust that advice to the circumstances of life.
What this Bill does is to put the control of currency, and of credit finally, into the hands of the experts entirely, and you do not retain in your hands any measure of control, so as to modify the advice of the experts in the way that is essential in anything else. No one suggests that the Bank of England deliberately throw people out of work, but there cannot be a shadow of dispute that the policy of inflation has always meant in this country, as in every other European country, that people are thrown out of work. We say that to place the control entirely in the hands of people who look at it purely from the financial standpoint is wrong. You cannot blame them if you put it into their hands. They look at it from the financial standpoint; the great industrialist would have looked at it in a different way, and the working man might have looked at it in a different way still. You have only one aspect and one vision of the whole problem when you place the matter entirely in the hands of the Bank of England; and if you do so the result
naturally is that this House is to blame and not the Bank of England. That, to my mind, is fundamental. We cannot claim to have anything more than a say in the matter if the Bank of England is willing to consult us; and if they are not willing to consult us we have no voice. That must be borne in mind. The figure may remain fixed at this sum of £260,900,000; we might have a large expansion of trade and this House of Commons might want to see the figure raised, but until the Directors of the Bank of England went to the Treasury it would be of no use for the Treasury to go to the Bank and to suggest that the figure ought to go up.
Meanwhile, the financial result of the policy—and this has to be borne in mind—is borne by the House of Commons. When you had the policy of the Bank and the policy or the great industrialists creating a large number of unemployed, who paid the money which had to be paid and which is being paid to the unemployed? This House of Commons had to find the money. Therefore, as has happened in other countries, it may well be that you might say to the Bank, "It is quite true that financially your policy is a sound one, but it is too expensive for us." That has been done in other countries, and the policy of inflation has been slowed down or stopped altogether. That is the problem which we have before us to-day. In all probability when an era of real trade expansion comes, you will find that by this Bill you have placed the decisive power of decision in the hands of the Bank—in the hands of a body of able and disinterested men, but of men who will be looking at the problem from one standpoint only; and when they have looked at it and come to their decision, that will be the final decision of the country; and in all probability that decision will mean that at the crucial moment the brakes will be put by the Bank of England on your trade revival, the trade revival will be slowed down, men who might have got employment will remain unemployed, and industries which might have been expanded and might have found a larger output for their goods if this financial policy had not been followed will find that the era of prosperity for which they have hoped has been postponed. That is what I still believe about this Bill, and nothing that
the hon. and right hon. Gentlemen on the Front Bench have said convinces me that that is not what will happen.

Mr. DALTON: I think it is extremely unfortunate that the Government appear to have closed their minds to the demand which emerges as the result of the Debate, including speeches made from their own side. I should have thought that at least we would have had some suggestion that they were going to consider the matter on Report, but we have had no suggestion of that kind at all. These two Amendments which are now under discussion are important Amendments. I propose to confine what I have to say very briefly to the second of them, the provision for a two years' limit on the authority to increase the fiduciary note issue. I should like to stress the very depressing psychological effect that this provision is bound to have upon the minds of industrialists. It would introduce an element of political uncertainty into all the calculations which are made by employers and other interested in business. They may be able under the mechanism of this Clause to get a temporary increase in the fiduciary note issue for six months and then again for a further six months and so on up to a period of two years, but they will learn that under the terms of this Bill, if it passes into law as it is now drafted, at the end of the two years Parliament may or may not consent to make permanent, or to continue, the increase of the fiduciary note issue which has already been agreed. How is that going to influence the minds of intelligent industrialists who understand the situation, like the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carmarthen (Sir A. Mond), who has been conspicuous by his absence from these Debates? Bow is that going to affect their plans: and how is it going to affect their minds as to the possibility of carrying out a continuous policy of increase of output and the extension of employment? It will have a most damaging effect, because they will not know what is likely to be decided at the end of the two-year period.
I regard this two-year period as one of the most serious blemishes in the Bill. It introduces uncertainty and just that policy of political interference in its most objectionable form against which the Government have themselves protested.
The position will be, that it will only be possible to maintain the note issue at the level necessary to carry a larger volume of trade and employment, at the price of political uncertainty as to what Parliament will do at the end of two years' control, or else this will have to be done by drawing into this country an increased supply of gold, giving an increased note issue without having an increased fiduciary issue. One of these alternatives is bad politically and the other is bad financially, because to draw in this gold you will have to raise the bank rate and so put another brake upon trade in that way.
I am surprised the Government have not thrown out some suggestion that they will be open to argument on this point. The best we can do in the circumstances is to observe that two years is a period which may well cover a change of Government in this country. If this Bill passes in its present highly objectionable and rigid form before the full period of two years has run and before the knife has been brought down again upon the neck of expanding industry, it is possible that certain political changes will have occurred which will enable amending legislation to be put through on the lines of the Amendment.

Sir F. MEYER: After the speech of the hon. Member objecting to the very mild political control given to Parliament at the end of two years I suppose we may take it as definitely the policy of the Labour party's Front Bench that the Government and Parliament generally are to have no say in determining what the currency system is to be.

Mr. MAXTON: But for the intervention of the hon. Member for Yarmouth (Sir F. Meyer) perhaps I should not have spoken at this late hour. I thank the hon. Member for the assistance he has given me in concentrating my thoughts. The Amendment does not very well convey the point we are trying to put across the Floor of the House. It certainly does not admit of the interpretation the hon. Member for Yarmouth put on it. I think everybody ought to be anxious to establish a system which seems to be the natural corollary of the power conferred upon the Bank in Clause 8. If the Bank may make
representations to the Treasury, surely it is only fair that in such a partnership the Treasury should have the right to make representations to the Bank.
The Secretary of State for War asked if my hon. Friends thought the experts of the Bank of England were malicious or ignorant. I do not know them well enough to make a positive assertion that they are not both, but they are not the only two failings which may attach to human beings. I do not think the right hon. Gentleman himself is either malicious or ignorant; in some directions I think he knows far too much; but I am prepared to say that on many occasions he has taken decisions which had very evil results on the general population by looking at the problems before him in a one-eyed, partisan way.
The right hon. Gentleman, as a statesman, has had some experience in looking at things from a wider point of view. The experts who advise the Bank of England have not had the opportunities of the Secretary of State for War for that broad intellectual development that he has acquired and which the opportunities of this House afford of mixing with men of different classes. These experts live in a more limited sphere and have a more limited measurement of the odds, but they are quite capable of taking decisions which might have very evil results on the whole of the national life. I intervened on the Second Reading to put the plain man's view on this question of banking and currency. I feel that in the course of this Debate the Government might have seen their way to concede some points which would give to this House and to the country some hope that in future the banking of this country would be directed in a way which would have some regard to national welfare, and the industrial and social welfare of the general body of the people, instead of being directed merely towards securing that the stability of the Bank of England and the interests and profits payable to the shareholders of the Bank of England should be the first consideration.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Captain FitzRoy): The hon. Member is making the speech which he made on the Second Reading. The two Amendments are of quite a definite character.

Mr. MAXTON: While I accept your ruling, Captain FitzRoy, I must express my personal opinion that I never make the same speech twice. I will endeavour to keep my remarks definitely to the Clause and the Amendments which are on the Paper. My hon. Friends contend that unless their Amendments are accepted we shall not be able to secure greater elasticity in the contraction or expansion of the fiduciary issue. I thought it was possible to make a speech without using the words "fiduciary issue," but I must confess that I have failed. I was asking for a greater freedom of expansion and contraction and that is the meaning of the Amendments we are discussing. In defending the case against this Amendment the Secretary of State for War told us that we could safely leave this question in the hands of the experts of the Bank of England. I have a great respect for experts, whether educational, surgical, military, or any other kind of experts, but I am not prepared to trust my life and liberty to any one of them without first exercising my own judgment; and, similarly, I think that the House of Commons ought to be as careful and precise in its handling of its responsibilities for the national welfare in regard to the operations of experts as Members would be in dealing with their own personal affairs.
I regret very much that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is not able to be present to give us the benefit of his expert knowledge, his greater elasticity of mind, and in some degree his greater desire to meet the reasonable and intelligent views of those who hold different political principles; but I would point out to the representatives of the Treasury who are present that they have introduced this Bill in a very careless and slipshod fashion, and with no other consideration but to give back into the hands of the Bank of England, their industrial, commercial and political friends, the great power which they had before 1914, and which they could not exercise efficiently in 1914.
We ask that the House of Commons should not throw that power away foolishly and absolutely, but should retain its power to direct and guide and compel the experts to see that the function of banking is to keep the wheels of industry running. It has not done that during
the last dozen years, and there is nothing in this Bill that helps it to do so in the future. When the Bill has passed through all its stages, the whole of this tremendous field of our national operations will have been handed back to a small commercial directorate, and the Secretary of State for War, as representing the Conservative Government, tells us that this must be left entirely to the experts, and assures us that they are neither ignorant nor actuated by malice; and he thinks that that is a responsible way for a Cabinet Minister to look at this business. We would not adopt that in regard to the Air Force, nor would the right hon. Gentleman adopt it in regard to the War Office—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is now really arguing in favour of the Bill. These two Amendments propose to do away with the power of the Treasury in this matter.

Mr. MAXTON: Not as I understand it. They are trying, as I understand it, to reduce a limitation by the removal of certain restrictions, and surely it is legitimate for me to reply to the arguments that were put forward by the Secretary of State for War in his attack on the Amendments. [Interruption.] I am doing the best that I can in the very limited circumstances.

Mr. WOMERSLEY: You did better last week!

Mr. MAXTON: The circumstances were different, and the object is different, The Secretary of State for War would not trust the running of the Army to the experts. I know exactly what his attitude would be with the most responsible field-marshals and generals that he would have in front of him. He would say, and rightly, "I want to hear what you have to say. You have special experience that I have not, but I have responsibilities that you have not. I have certain capacities and qualifications which you have not got. I am willing to listen to what you have to say from your expert point of view as to how war should be run or how preparations for war should be made but in consultation with my fellows in the Cabinet, will decide finally what the action of the Government is going to be." He comes here to-night and
tries to tell me there is to be a different attitude towards the banks, which after all in the normal day to day life of the nation, in the commercial life of the nation, is a much more important thing than the question of war. This affects our everyday life. The Prime Minister made a speech yesterday.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member must really confine himself to the Amendment.

Mr. MAXTON: I was only introducing that point for the very limited purpose of arguing that it is not possible, if the Government is going to carry out the promises its leader makes to the country, to give effect to the hopes which a speech raises unless the Amendment I am now supporting is carried. The Prime Minister promises the country by implication that he is ready to see that the banks make their sacrifices along with other sections of the community. But his Minister of War, defending a Clause of this Bill, says it must be so framed that when it has been passed unamended, the whole working of the thing must be left for the experts and even the Prime Minister must not be allowed to intervene. Why tell industrialists who are looking for assistance that industry is going to be supported as against the Shylocks? How are we going to retain a, pound of flesh on our industrial body? That is the problem and the Prime Minister tells the country he is prepared to defend them and see that the banks are compelled to make their sacrifices in a period of bad trade along with the others. Then his Minister of War, specially selected out of the whole range of the Cabinet to defend the Bill because of his expert knowledge of financial questions, tells us it is not a matter the Cabinet or the House of Commons has anything to do with, or even the Treasury, and it must be left to the experts. I am not accepting that view and I hope my hon. Friends will divide.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 208 Noes, 98.

Division No. 132.]
AYES.
[11.31 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Grant, Sir J. A.
Perkins, Colonel E. K.


Ainsworth, Lieut.-Col. Charles
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Albery, Irving James
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Grotrian, H. Brent
Pilcher, G.


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Hacking, Douglas H.
Power, Sir John Cecil


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Pownall, Sir Assheton


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)
Preston, William


Balniel, Lord
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Price, Major C. W. M.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Hammersley, S. S.
Raine, Sir Walter


Barnett, Major Sir Richard
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Ramsden, E.


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Harland, A.
Reid, D. D. (County Down)


Bennett, A. J.
Harrison, G. J. C.
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Bethel, A.
Hartington, Marquess of
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)


Betterton, Henry B.
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Haslam, Henry C.
Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.


Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter


Brass, Captain w.
Henderson, Capt. R. R.(Oxf'd, Henley)
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Henderson, Lieut.-Col. Sir Vivian
Salmon, Major I.


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Hills, Major John Waller
Sandeman, N. Stewart


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Hilton, Cecil
Sanders, Sir Robert A.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H.C.(Berks,Newb'y)
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Sandon, Lord


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw k, Nun.)
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.


Bullock, Captain M.
Hopkins, J. W. W.
Savery, S. S.


Burman, J. B.
Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M.(Hackney,N.)
Shepperson, E. W.


Butt, Sir Alfred
Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
Skelton, A. N.


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Hiffe, Sir Edward M.
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine,C.)


Carver, Major W. H.
Inskip, sir Thomas Walker H.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R.(Prtsmth.S.)
Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen't)
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Stanley, Lieut,-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)


Christie, J. A.
Kindersley, Major Guy M.
Steel, Major Samuel Strang


Churchman, Sir Arthur C.
King, Commodore Henry Douglas
Storry-Deans, R.


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Knox, Sir Alfred
Streatfeild, Captain S. R.


Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Lamb, J. Q.
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Conway, Sir W. Martin
Little, Dr. E. Graham
Tasker, R. Inigo


Cooper, A. Duff
Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)
Templeton, W. P.


Couper, J. B.
Loder, J. de v.
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Looker, Herbert William
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, south)


Cowan, D. M. {Scottish universities)
Lougher, Lewis
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell


Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Tomlinson, R. P.


Crookshank,Cpt.H.(Lindsey,Galnsbro)
Lynn, Sir R. J.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Curzon, Captain Viscount
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Dalkeith, Earl of
Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Davidson, Major-General Sir John H.
Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L.(Kingston-on-Hull)


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
MacIntyre, Ian
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Davies, Dr. Vernon
McLean, Major A.
Warrender, Sir Victor


Dean, Arthur Wellesley
Macmillan, Captain H.
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Dixey, A. C.
Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Drewe, C.
MacRobert, Alexander M.
Wells, S. R.


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)
White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dalrymple


Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Elliot, Major Walter E.
Margesson, Captain D.
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Fanshawe, Captain G. D.
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Fielden, E. B.
Mason, Colonel Glyn K.
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
Meller, R. J.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Forrest, W.
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Womersley, W. J.


Foster, Sir Harry S.
Meyer, Sir Frank
Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)


Foxcroft, Captain C. T.
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw
Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'ge & Hyde)


Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony
Monseli, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Ganzonl, Sir John
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
Nelson, Sir Frank
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Gates, Percy
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)



Gilmour. Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Oakley, T.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Glyn, Major R. G. C.
O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)
Major Sir George Hennessy and


Gower, Sir Robert
Penny, Frederick George
Major Cope.


Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)





NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Batey, Joseph
Dalton, Hugh


Adamson, W. M. (Staff, Cannock)
Broad, F. A.
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)


Alexander. A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Bromley, J.
Day, Harry


Ammon, Charles George
Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Duncan, C.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Buchanan, G.
Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)


Baker, Walter
Cape, Thomas
Gibbins, Joseph


Barnes, A.
Charleton, H. C.
Gillett, George M.


Barr, J.
Connolly, M.
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)




Greenall, T.
Lunn, William
Snell, Harry


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Mackinder, W.
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Stamford, T. W.


Groves, T.
Maxton, James
Stephen, Campbell


Grundy, T. W.
Montague, Frederick
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Murnin, H.
Sullivan, Joseph


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvll)
Oliver, George Harold
Sutton, J. E.


Hayday, Arthur
Palin, John Henry
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Hayes, John Henry
Paling, W.
Thurtle, Ernest


Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Tinker, John Joseph


Hirst, G. H.
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Varley, Frank B.


Hirst, w. (Bradford, South)
Ponsonby, Arthur
Viant, S. P.


Hollins, A.
Potts, John S.
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermilno)


Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Purcell, A. A.
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Wellock, Wilfred


John, William (Rhondda, West)
Ritson, J.
Welsh, J. C.


Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Saklatvaia, Shapurji
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Salter, Dr. Alfred
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Sexton, James
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Kelly, W. T.
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Windsor, Walter


Kennedy, T.
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Kirkwood, D.
Sitch, Charles H.



Lawson, John James
Slesser, Sir Henry H.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Lee. F.
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)
Mr. T. Henderson and Mr. Whiteley


Lindley, F. W.
Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley)

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I beg to move, in page 5, to leave out lines 28 to 33.

Question put, "That the words pro-

Division No. 133.]
AYES.
[11.39 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)


Ainsworth, Lieut.-Col. Charles
Davies, Dr. Vernon
Hopkins, J. W. W.


Albery, Irving James
Dean, Arthur Wellesley
Hore-Bellsha, Leslie


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Dixey, A. C.
Hudson, Capt.A. U. M.(Hackney, N.)


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Drewe, C.
Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)


Ashley, Lt. Col. Ht. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Illffe, Sir Edward M.


Balniel, Lord
Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)
Inskip, sir Thomas Walker H.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Elliot, Major Walter E.
Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)


Barnett, Major Sir Richard
Fanshawe, Captain G. D.
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Fielden. E. B.
Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)


Bennett, A. J.
Forestler-Walker, Sir L.
Kindersley, Major Guy M.


Bethel, A.
Forrest, W.
King, Commodore Henry Douglas


Betterton, Henry B.
Foster, Sir Harry S.
Knox, Sir Alfred


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Foxcroft, Captain C. T.
Lamb, J. Q.


Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Fraser, Captain Ian
Little, Dr. E. Graham


Brass, Captain W.
Fremantle, Lleut.-Colonel Francis E.
Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Gadle, Lieut.-Col. Anthony
Loder J. de V.


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Ganzonl, Sir John.
Looker, Herbert William


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
Lougher, Lewis


Brown-Lindsay, Major H.
Gates, Percy
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H.C.(Berks,Newb'y)
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Lynn, Sir R. J.


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Gower, Sir Robert
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen


Bullock, Captain M.
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)


Burman, J. B.
Grant, Sir J. A.
Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)


Butt, Sir Alfred
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Macintyre, Ian


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Greene, W. P. Crawford
McLean, Major A.


Carver, Major W. H.
Grotrian, H. Brent
Macmillan, Captain H.


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R.(Prtsmth.S.)
Hacking, Douglas H.
Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm


Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
MacRobert, Alexander M.


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)
Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Hammersley, S. S.
Makins, Brigadier-General E.


Christie, J. A.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.


Churchman, Sir Arthur C.
Harland, A.
Mason, Colonel Giyn K.


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Harrison, G. J. C.
Meller, R. J.


Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Hartington, Marquess of
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd


Conway, Sir W. Martin
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Meyer, Sir Frank


Cooper, A. Duff
Haslam, Henry C.
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw


Couper, J. B.
Headlam, Lieut-Colonel C. M.
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd,Henley)
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Henderson, Lieut.-Col. Sir Vivian
Nelson, Sir Frank


Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)
Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)


Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Oakley, T.


Crookshank, Cpt. H,(Lindsey, Galnsbro)
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Hills. Major John Waller
Penny, Frederick George


Dalkeith, Earl of
Hilton, Cecil
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Perkins, Colonel E. K.

posed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 205; Noes, 96.

Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)
Savery, S. S.
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Pilcher, G.
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L.(Kingston-on-Hull)


Power, Sir John Cecil
Shepperson, E. W.
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Pownall, Sir Assheton
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John
Warrender, Sir Victor


Preston, William
Skelton, A. N.
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Price, Major C. W. M.
Smith, R.W.(Aberd'n & Kinc'dlne, C.)
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Raine, Sir Walter
Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Wells, S. R.


Ramsden, E.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dalrymple


Held, D. D. (County Down)
Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G.F.
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)
Williams, Com. C. {Devon, Torquay)


Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell
Steel, Major Samuel Strang
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.
Storry-Deans, R.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter
Streatfeild, Captain S. R.
Womersley, W. J.


Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid
Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)


Salmon, Major I.
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)
Wood, E. (Chester, Stalyb'ge & Hyde)


Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Sandeman, N. Stewart
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Sanders, Sir Robert A.
Tomlinson, R. P.



Sandon, Lord
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Ciement
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—




Major Cope and Capt. Margesson.




NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (File, West)
Hirst, G. H.
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Hirst, w. (Bradford, South)
Sexton, James


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Hollins, A.
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Amnion, Charles George
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Sitch, Charles H.


Baker, Walter
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Slesser, Sir Henry H.


Barnes, A.
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Barr, J.
Jones, J. J, (West Ham, Silvertown)
Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)


Batey, Joseph
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Snell, Harry


Broad, F, A.
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Bromley, J.
Kelly, W. T.
Stamford, T. W.


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Kennedy, T.
Stephen, Campbell


Buchanan, G.
Kirkwood, D.
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Charleton, H. C.
Lawson, John James
Sullivan, J.


Connolly, M.
Lee, F.
Sutton, J. E.


Dalton, Hugh
Lindley, F. W.
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Lunn, William
Thurtle, Ernest


Day, Harry
Mackinder, W.
Tinker, John Joseph


Duncan, C.
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Varley, Frank B.


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bidwellty)
Maxton, James
Viant, S. P.


Gibbins, Joseph
Montague, Frederick
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Gillett, George M-
Murnin, H.
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Oliver, George Harold
Wellock, Wilfred


Greenall, T.
Palin, John Henry
Welsh, J. C.


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Paling, W.
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Groves, T.
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Grundy, T. W,
Ponsonby, Arthur
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Hall, F. (York., W.R., Normanton)
Potts, John S.
Windsor, Walter


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Purcell, A. A.
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Hayday, Arthur
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)



Hayes, John Henry
Ritson, J.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)
Saklatvala, Shapurji
Mr. T. Henderson and Mr. Whiteley.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. SNOWDEN: I beg to move "that the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
I think we have reached a stage of the discussion when we might conveniently adjourn. At this late hour it is, I suggest, unreasonable to expect us to finish the consideration of the Amendments on the Paper, and it would be still more unreasonable to attempt to get the Report stage and Third Reading to-night. Two hours have been taken—not unreasonably, but quite reasonably—out of
the time intended for the consideration of this Bill, and I think the Bill is now bound to be set down for further consideration. Therefore we might adjourn now and leave the Amendments which are undiscussed and the other stages of the Bill to be taken on another day.

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I am afraid the right hon. Gentleman is a little impatient. It is only 10 minutes to 12 o'clock and four Amendments remain to be considered. Two of these are Government Amendments, and they are quite plain and simple, and should not take more than a few minutes each. As
to the two Opposition Amendments it does not, of course, depend on the Government how long they will take, but they are very simple and do not raise any big questions. All the big questions have been debated at length—I do not say at too great length, but certainly at length. Formally there has to be a Report stage because of two very minor Government Amendments, but these do not require to be discussed a second time, and if hon. Members opposite co-operate with the Government, the whole business could be finished in the next 20 minutes.

Mr. SNOWDEN: I think the position of the right hon. Gentleman is a most unreasonable one. The Government have only allowed an interval of two days

Division No. 134.]
AYES.
[11.52 p.m.


Adamson. Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Hollins, A.
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Adamson, w. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Sitch, Charles H.


Ammon, Charles George
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Slesser, Sir Henry H.


Batey, Joseph
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)


Buchanan, G.
Jonas, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Charleton, H. C.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Stephen, Campbell


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Sullivan, Joseph


Dalton, Hugh
Kelly, W. T.
Sutton, J. E.


Day, Harry
Kennedy, T.
Thurtle, Ernest


Duncan, C.
Kirkwood, D.
Tinker, John Joseph


Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
Lawson, John James
Varley, Frank B.


Gibbins, Joseph
Lindley, F. W.
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Gillett, George M.
Lunn, William
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Mackinder, W.
Wellock, Wilfred


Greenall, T.
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Welsh, J. C.


Greenwood. A. (Nelson and Colne)
Maxton, James
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Murnin, H.
Whiteley, W.


Groves, T.
Oliver, George Harold
Wilkinson, Ellen c.


Grundy, T. W.
Palin, John Henry
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Hall, F. (York, W.R., Norm[...]nton)
Paling, W.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Hall, G. H. (Morthyr Tydvil)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Windsor, Waiter


Hayday, Arthur
Pethick-Lawrance, F. W.
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Hayes, John Henry
Potts, John S.



Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)
Purcell, A. A.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Saklatvala, Shapurji
Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. Barnes.


Hirst, G. H.
Salter, Dr. Alfred



Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)






NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Fraser, Captain Ian


Albery, Irving James
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Christie, J. A.
Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Ganzoni, Sir John


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Gates, Percy


Balniel, Lord
Conway, Sir W. Martin
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Cooper, A. Duff
Gower, Sir Robert


Barnett, Major Sir Richard
Couper, J. B.
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Courtauld, Major J. S.
Grant, Sir J. A.


Bennett, A. J.
Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)
Greene, W. P. Crawford


Bethel, A.
Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Grotrian, H. Brent


Betterton, Henry B.
Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsay, Gainsbro)
Hacking, Douglas H.


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Curzon, Captain Viscount
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)


Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Dalkeith, Earl of
Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)


Brass, Captain W.
Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
Hammersley, S. S.


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Dean, Arthur Wellesley
Harland, A.


Brooke. Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Dixey, A, C.
Harrison, G. J. C.


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Drewe, C.
Hartington, Marquess of


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)


Bullock, Captain M.
Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)
Haslam, Henry C.


Burman, J. B.
Elliot, Major Walter E.
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.


Butt, Sir Alfred
Fanshawe, Captain G. D.
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)


Carver, Major W. H.
Foster, Sir Harry S.
Henderson, Lieut.-Col. Sir Vivian


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)
Foxcroft, Captain C. T.
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.

between Second Reading and Committee stage and propose that every stage of the Bill—Committee stage, Report and Third Reading—should be taken at one sitting. The only explanation I can suggest for the anxiety of the Government is that they know that the more time that is allowed the more opposition will develop. I do not think the right hon. Gentleman is treating the Opposition fairly, and, in those circumstances, I must press my proposal.

Question put, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."

The committee divided: Ayes, 81, Noes, 177.

Hills, Major John Waller
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Hilton, Cecil
O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)
Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.


Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)
Oakley, T.
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)


Hopkins, J. W. W.
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Steel, Major Samuel Strang


Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Storry-Deans, R.


Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Iliffe, Sir Edward M.
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Pilcher, G.
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)
Power, Sir John Cecil
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-


Kindersley, Major G. M.
Preston, William
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


King, Commodore Henry Douglas
Price, Major C. W. M.
Tomlinson, R. P.


Knox, Sir Alfred
Raine, Sir Walter
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Lamb, J. Q.
Ramsden, E.
Vaughan, Morgan, Col. K. P.


Little, Dr. E. Graham
Reid, D. D. (County Down)
Wallace, Captain D. S.


Lougher, Lewis
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)


Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell
Warrender, Sir Victor


Mac Andrew, Major Charles Glen
Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Wells, S. R.


MacIntyre, Ian
Salmon, Major I.
White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dairymple-


McLean, Major A.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Macmillan, Captain H.
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm
Sandeman, N. Stewart
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


MacRobert, Alexander M.
Sanders, Sir Robert A.
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)
Sandon, Lord
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Margesson, Captain D.
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.
Womersley, W. J.


Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Savery, S. S.
Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)


Mason, Colonel Glyn K.
Shefliclo, Sir Berkeley
Wood, E. (Chester, Stalyb'ge & Hyde)


Meller, R. J.
Shepperson, E. W.
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John
Worthington-Evans. Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Milne, J. S. Wardlaw-
Skelton, A. N.
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dins, C.)



Mcore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Nelson, Sir Frank
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Major Cope and Mr. Penny.

Original Question put, and agreed to.

CLAUSE 9.—(Amendment as to issue of notes by banks in Scotland and Northern Ireland.)

Mr. SAMUEL: I beg to move, in page 5, line 43, at the end, to add the words,
(2) A bank in Scotland or Northern Ireland may hold the coin and bank notes by reference to which the amount of the bank notes which it is entitled to have in circulation is limited at such of its offices in Scotland or Northern Ireland, respectively, not exceeding two, as may from time to time be approved by the Treasury
I will formally move, this Amendment and leave my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State -for Scotland to say a word or two about it.

Major ELLIOT: This is one of the Amendments to which my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for War, has referred to as being short Amendments that would not take up much time. It simply deals with Irish banks and the Scottish banks, to enable them to make some arrangement with regard to their depots or head offices. In the case of the Scottish banks, one bank, the Union Bank, has power to keep notes in two offices. It has that power under the Act of 1914, which is being repealed. We desire to preserve that power for the Scottish banks. As that power under the Act of 1914 is being repealed we
desire to preserve it for the Scottish banks, and we shall make it operative for the other banks, as well as the Union Bank, and they may keep the notes in the two offices which shall be agreed by the Treasury. These matters have been discussed with both the Scottish and Irish banks, and I think that there is a measure of agreement.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 10.—(Amendment of s. 6 of 7 and 8 Viet. c. 32.)

Mr. LEES-SMITH: I beg to move, in page 6, line 4, to leave out the words, "with the concurrence of the Bank."
I am moving this Amendment in order to extract some information from the Government, and I want to put some questions on matters which ought to be cleared up at this stage. This is a Clause which allows the Bank of England and the Government in conjunction, to modify the Bank return which is issued every Thursday, and has been issued for some generations. I wish to ask the Government what use they intend to make of this Clause? Do they intend to use it merely in order to carry out the automatic changes in the Bank Return, which the passage of this Bill will necessitate; or do they intend to take this oppor-
tunity of introducing some forms into the Bank Return in order to provide that it shall give information which has been asked for for a good many years? I have no doubt that the Financial Secretary has been asked for these forms, so that there shall be more information, for instance, with regard to the deposits, that it shall be broken up into a larger number of items, and that we should follow the model of the Federal Reserve Banks. There is one point to which I wish to call his attention. The Cunliffe Committee dealt with the subject, and in one of the paragraphs of their Report they recommended that there should be a change in the returns issued by the banks of this country, so that more information should be given to the public, and in fact, it included at the end of its Report a model table, laying down the information which the banks ought to give. That part of the Cunliffe Committee's Report has not been carried out. The banks do not give this informa-

Division No. 135.]
AYES.
[12.7 a.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Elliot, Major Walter E.
Macmillan, Captain H.


Albery, Irving James
Fanshawe, Captain G. D.
Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Foster, Sir Harry S.
MacRobert, Alexander M.


Applln, Colonel R. V. K.
Foxcroft, Captain C. T.
Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Fraser, Captain Ian
Margesson, Captain D.


Balniel, Lord
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Gadie, Lieut.-Colonel Anthony
Mason, Colonel Glyn K.


Barnett, Major Sir Richard
Ganzonl, Sir John
Meller, R. J.


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Garro-Jones. Captain G. M.
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd


Bethel, A.
Gates, Percy
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw-


Betterton, Henry 8.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Gower, Sir Robert
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.


Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Nelson, Sir Frank


Brass, Captain W.
Grant, Sir J. A.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Greene, W. P. Crawford
O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Hacking, Douglas H.
Oakley, T.


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Penny, Frederick George


Broun-Lindsay. Major H.
Hammersley, S. S
Perkins, Colonel E. K.


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Bullock, Captain M.
Harland, A.
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)


Burman, J. B.
Harrison, G. J. C.
Pitcher, G.


Butt, Sir Alfred
Hartington, Marquess of
Power, Sir John Cecil


Carver, Major W. H.
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Preston, William


Cayzer, Maj, Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, s.)
Haslam, Henry C.
Price, Major C. W. M.


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Raine, Sir Walter


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Ramsden, E.


Christie, J. A.
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Reid, D. D. (County Down)


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A D.
Hills, Major John Waller
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y. Ch'ts'y)


Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Hilton, Cecil
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)


Cooper, A. Duff
Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell


Cope, Major William
Hopkins, J. W. W.
Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.


Couper, J. B.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Salmon, Major I.


Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)
Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Kindersley, Major Guy M.
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindaey, Galnsbro)
King, Commodore Henry Douglas
Sandeman, N. Stewart


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Knox, Sir Alfred
Sanders, Sir Robert A.


Dalkeith, Earl of
Lamb, J. Q.
Sandon, Lord


Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
Lougher, Lewis
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovll)
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Savery, S. S.


Dean, Arthur Wellesley
Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley


Dixey, A. C.
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen
Shepperson, E. W.


Drewe, C.
Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Skelton, A. N.


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Macintyre, Ian
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)
McLean, Major A.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.

tion and they are not likely to give it unless the Bank of England leads the way. In fact, unless the Bank of England gives more information, there will be no use in the other banks carrying out the suggestions of the Cunliffe Committee. I therefore wish to ask the Government, before the Committee passes this Clause, to tell us exactly what use they intend to make of the power which they seek.

Mr. SAMUEL: There will be nothing other than minor consequential amendments in the form of the Bank return, such as the excision of the reference to silver bullion and the provision of an entry for silver coin.

Mr. LEES-SMITH: That answer, I may say, is entirely unsatisfactory.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 168; Noes, 72.

Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Stanley, Lord (Fylde)
Wallace, Captain D. E.
Womersley, W. J.


Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.
Ward, Lt.-Col. A.L. (Kingston-on-Hull)
Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)


Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.
Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'dge & Hyde)


Steel, Major Samuel Strang
Waterhouse, Captain Charles
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Storry-Deans, R.
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Sugden, Sir Wilfrid
Wells, S. R.
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)
White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dairymple-



Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Titchfield, Major the Marquess of
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)
Mr. Frederick Thomson and Sir Victor Warrender.


Tomlinson, R. P.
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)



Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement






NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Saklatvala, Shapurji


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Hollins, A.
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Sitch, Charles H.


Barnes, A.
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Slesser, Sir Henry H.


Batey, Joseph
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)


Buchanan, G.
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Charleton, H. C.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Stephen, Campbell


Dalton, Hugh
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Sullivan, J.


Day, Harry
Kelly, W. T.
Sutton, J. E.


Duncan, C.
Kennedy, T.
Thurtle, Ernest


Glbbins, Joseph
Kirkwood, D
Tinker, John Joseph


Gillett, George M.
Lawson, John James
Varley, Frank B.


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Lindley, F. W.
Watson, w. M. (Dunfermline)


Greenall, T.
Lunn, William
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Mackinder, W.
Wellock, Wilfred


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Welsh, J. C.


Groves, T.
Maxton, James
Whiteley, W.


Grundy, T. W.
Murnin, H.
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Oliver, George Harold
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Paling, W.
Windsor, Walter


Hayday, Arthur
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.



Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Potts, John S.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Hirst, G. H.
Purcell, A. A.
Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. Hayes.

Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Division No. 136.]
AYES.
[12.15 a.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Dalkeith, Earl of
Hopkins, J. W. W.


Albery, Irving James
Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N).


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Dean, Arthur Wellesley
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Dixey, A. C.
Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)


Balniel, Lord
Drewe, C.
Kindersley, Major G. M.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Edmondson, Major A. J.
King, Commodore Henry Douglas


Barnett, Major Sir Richard
Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)
Knox, Sir Alfred


Beamish, Roar-Admiral T. P. H.
Elliot, Major Walter E.
Lamb, J. Q.


Bethel, A.
Fanshawe, Captain G. D.
Lucas-Tooth. Sir Hugh Vere


Betterton, Henry B.
Foster, Sir Harry S.
Luce, Major-Gen, Sir Richard Harman


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Foxcroft, Captain C. T.
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen


Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Fraser, Captain Ian
Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)


Brass, Captain W.
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Macintyre, Ian


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony
McLean, Major A.


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Ganzoni, Sir John
Macmillan, Captain H.


Brooks, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
MacRobert, Alexander M.


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Gower, Sir Robert
Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-


Bullock, Captain M.
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Margesson, Captain D.


Burman, J. B.
Grant, Sir J. A.
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.


Butt, Sir Alfred
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Mason, Colonel Glyn K.


Cayzer, Maj, Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)
Hacking, Douglas H.
Meller, R. J.


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Hail, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Hammersley, S. S.
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.


Christie, J. A.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Harland, A.
Nelson, Sir Frank


Colfox, Major William Phillips
Harrison, G. J. C.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)


Cooper, A. Duff
Hartington, Marquess of
Oakley, T.


Cope, Major William
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)


Couper, J. B.
Haslam, Henry C.
Penny, Frederick George


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Perkins, Colonel E. K.


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Henderson, Capt. R.R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)


Crookshank, Col. C. tie W. (Berwick)
Hills, Major John Walter
Pilcher, G.


Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Hilton, Cecil
Power, Sir John Cecil


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)
Preston, William

The Committee divided: Ayes, 163; Noes, 68.

Price, Major C. W. M.
Skelton, A. N.
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Raine, Sir Walter
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Ramsden, E.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Wells, S. R.


Reid, D. D. (County Down)
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dairymple


Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)
Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G.F.
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Renneil
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Wtitm'eland)
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.
Steel, Major Samuel Strang
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter
Storry-Deans, R.
Womersley, W. J.


Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid
Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)


Salmon, Major I.
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)
Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'dge & Hyde)


Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Sandeman, N. Stewart
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Sanders, Sir Robert A.
Tomlinson, R. P.



Sandon, Lord
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.
Captain Wallace and Sir Victor Warrender.


Sheffield, Sir Berkeley
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)



Shepperson, E. W.
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.





NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Hirst, G. H.
Saklatvala, Shapurji


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Prestos)


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Hollins, A.
Sitch, Charles H.


Barnes, A.
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Slesser, Sir Henry H.


Batey, Joseph
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)


Buchanan, G.
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Charleton, H. C.
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Stephen, Campbell


Dalton, Hugh
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Sullivan, Joseph


Day, Harry
Kelly, W. T.
Sutton, J. E.


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Kirkwood, D.
Thurtle, Ernest


Gibbins, Joseph
Lawson, John James
Tinker, John Joseph


Gillett, George M.
Lindley, F. W.
Varley, Frank B.


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Lunn, William
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermilne)


Greenall, T.
Mackinder, W.
Watts-Morgan. Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
M alone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Wellock, Wilfred


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Maxton, James
Welsh, J. C.


Groves, T
Murnin, H.
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Grundy, T. W.
Oliver, George Harold
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Paling, W.
Windsor, Walter


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)



Hayday, Arthur
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)
Potts, John S.
Mr. Whiteley and Mr. Hayes.


Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Purcell, A. A.

CLAUSE 11.—(Power of Bank of England to require persons to make returns of and to sell gold.")

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I beg to move, in page 6, line 12, after the word person, to insert the words "in I he United Kingdom."
This is intended to make it clear beyond a shadow of doubt that this Clause is for the purpose of preventing gold hoarding in England. It is not intended to interfere with the holding of gold in England on behalf of foreign banks or persons. That is the intention of the Clause. It is not quite clear and we are adding these words.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

The CHAIRMAN: The "Ayes" have it.

Mr. THURTLE: On a point of Order. May I submit to you that there were at least half-a-dozen distinct "Noes" when you put the Question.

The CHAIRMAN: The "Noes" were belated. After I had collected the voices, there were some belated cries of "No."

Mr. THILIRTLE: It surely does not follow that a Member must get up to speak in order to oppose a Question. If a number of Members shout "No" we are entitled to a Division.

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is quite right there, but on this occasion I think the voices shouting "No" came just too late.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: I shouted continuously "No." I did it in such a fashion that all who were willing could hear. The only way you did not hear was that you were not willing to hear.

The CHAIRMAN: I am always willing to hear relevant observations. If as soon as hon. Members realised that the Question was being put they said "No" I will give them the benefit of the doubt as to their belatedness.

The Committee divided: Ayes, 161 Noes, 62.

Division No. 137.]
AYES.
[12.25 a.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Raine, Sir Walter


Albery, Irving James
Grant, Sir J. A.
Ramsden, E.


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Reid, D. D. (County Down)


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Hacking, Douglas H.
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)


Balniel, Lord
Hammersley, S. S.
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.


Barnett, Major Sir Richard
Harland, A.
Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Harrison, G. J. C
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Bethel, A
Hartington, Marquess of
Salmon, Major I.


Betterton, Henry B.
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Haslam, Henry C.
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Sandeman, N. Stewart


Brass, Captain W.
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Sanders, Sir Robert A.


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Sandon, Lord


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Hills, Major John Waller
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Hilton, Cecil
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)
Shepperson, E. W.


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Hopkins, J. W. W.
Skelton, A. N.


Bullock, Captain M.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine,'C.)


Burman, J. B.
Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt, R.(Prtsmth, S.)
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)
Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Kindersley, Major G. M.
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Christie, J. A.
King, Commodore Henry Douglas
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Knox, Sir Alfred
Steel, Major Samuel Strang


Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Lamb, J. Q.
Storry-Deans, R.


Cooper, A. Duff
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Cope, Major William
Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Couper, J. B.
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Macintyre, Ian
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)
McLean, Major A.
Tomlinson, R. P.


Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Macmillan, Captain H.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Curzon, Captain Viscount
MacRobert, Alexander M.
Ward, Lt.-Col. A.L. (Kingston-on-Hull)


Dalkeith, Earl of
Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Davidson, Major-General Sir John H.
Margesson, Captain D.
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Mason, Colonel Glyn K.
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Dean, Arthur Wellesley
Meller, R. J.
Wells, S. R.


Dixey, A. C.
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dairymple-


Drewe, C.
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M,
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)
Nelson, Sir Frank
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Elliot, Major Walter E.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Fanshawe, Captain G. D.
Oakley, T.
Womersley, W. J.


Foster, Sir Harry S.
O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)
Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)


Foxcroft, Captain C. T.
Penny, Frederick George
Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'dge & Hyde)


Fraser, Captain Ian
Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Fremantle, Lieut.-Colone Francis E.
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Ganzoni, Sir John
Pilcher, G.



Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
Power, Sir John Cecil
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Preston, William
Captain Wallace and Sir Victor.


Gower, Sir Robert
Price, Major C. W. M.
Warrender.




NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Saklatvala, Shapurji


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Hollins, A.
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Sitch, Charles H.


Batey, Joseph
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Slesser, Sir Henry H.


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Buchanan, G.
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Stephen, Campbell


Charleton, H. C.
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Sullivan, J.


Dalton, Hugh
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Sutton, J. E.


Day, Harry
Kelly, W. T.
Thurtle, Ernest


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Kirkwood, D.
Tinker, John Joseph


Gibbins, Joseph
Lawson, John James
Varley, Frank B.


Gillett, George M.
Lindley, F. W.
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Lunn, William
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Greenall, T.
Mackinder, W.
Wellock, Wilfred


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Welsh, J. C.


Grundy, T. W.
Maxton, James
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)
Murnin, H.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Oliver, George Harold
Windsor, Walter


Hayday, Arthur
Paling, W.



Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Potts, John S.
Mr. Whiteley and Mr. Hayes.


Hirst, G. H.
Purcell, A. A.

Sir FRANK NELSON: I beg to move, in page 6, line 23, to leave out the words "four of the Bank Charter Act, 1844," and to insert instead thereof the words "one, sub-section (2), of the Gold Standard Act, 1925."
I would very gladly have dispensed with moving this Amendment at this late hour if I could reconcile it with my desire for enlightenment on what I conceive to be a really important point. Clause 11 lays down the drafting with a view to concentration of the gold reserve and economy in the use of gold. It empowers the Bank of England to acquire gold at a rate of 77s. 9d. per ounce standard as laid down in the Bank Charter Act of 1844. My Amendment changes the Bank Charter Act of 1844 to the Gold Standard Act of 1925; in other words, that the Bank shall be empowered only to acquire this gold at 77s. 10½d. The position at the moment, as I understand it, is that any holder of gold may take it to the Bank of England and demand payment for it at 77s. 9d., but conversely, if any trader or individual wants gold in any quantity from the Bank of England he has to pay 77s. 10½d. for it. May I put a very simple and brief hypothesis which shows the difficulty which I am in? Assume that a firm of brokers or dealers have brought gold on a Monday or Tuesday, and have reason to believe that their Indian or Egyptian market, which may be closed for a religious holiday, will come into the gold market on the following Thursday. Under this Clause the Bank of England may say "No, we want your gold now at 77s. 9d.," whereas, if they had been allowed to wait until Thursday, they might conceivably have got 3d. or 4d. an ounce more. I have nothing but support to give to any Clause which is designed to economise the concentration of the gold reserves, but if by the acquisition is meant an acquisition which gives a profit of 1½d. per ounce, primarily to the Bank of England but in actuality to the State, then it appears to me that we are concentrating our gold reserves at a profit of about 1½d. per ounce standard.

Mr. SAMUEL: As the hon. Member says, as the Clause stands, the Bank can buy at £3 17s. 9d. and sell at £3 17s. 10½d. If the Amendment stands the broker could buy back his gold at the price for
which he sold it, and thus defeat the object of the Clause. I thought I cleared up the point in my Second Reading speech. Clause 11, in line 19, provides for the very contingency which the hon. Member foreshadows. It enables the Bank to buy any holding of gold coin or bullion in excess of £10,000 compulsorily, with the important exception of gold,
which is bona fide held for immediate export or which is bona fide required for industrial purposes.
I went on to say that this exception is devised to leave the activities of the London bullion market entirely untouched. I think the objection is met by that.

Sir F. NELSON: It seems to me that the convertible gold reserves in the possession of a firm, an individual, a bank or a corporation might quite reasonably be held for industrial purposes, and have been held for some considerable number of years. It is rather a negation of what I understand as a free gold market if gold, which is genuinely held for industrial purposes, can be taken over at a profit to the State.

Mr. SULLIVAN: I am very sorry that I have to object to this Clause being passed without this Amendment. The Financial Secretary has treated the Committee very discourteously in getting up at this time of the morning and trying to explain the thing in the way that he has done. It is almost an insult to the intelligence of the Committee to expect us to pass this without some further explanation.

Amendment negatived.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Orders of the Day — Clause 12 (Penalty for defacing bank notes) ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Orders of the Day — CLAUSE 13.—(Short title, interpretation and repeal.)

The CHAIRMAN: The Amendment—in page 6, line 36, at the end, to insert the words "but in no case shall the appointed day be earlier than three months after the holding of an international conference of central banks"—in the name of the hon. Member for Peckham (Mr. Dalton) is not in order on the grounds of incompleteness.

Motion made, and Question proposed "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. DALTON: Since you have ruled that my Amendment is out of order, perhaps I may be allowed to make one or two observations along the lines that I should have done if the Amendment had been in order. [Interruption.]

The CHAIRMAN: The interjections coming from hon. Members are uncalled for. The hon. Member for Peckham (Mr. Dalton) is perfectly in order.

Mr. DALTON: I thank you, Mr. Hope, for your protection. The arguments which I should have desired to advance in favour of my Amendment if it had been in order would have been similar to the arguments on the Second Reading of the Bill, and I hope that in the period that has elapsed since the Second Reading the Government have thought over the matter a little more and may now be able to give us a more satisfactory answer. It was contended on the Second Reading that the proper date for the appointed day for these provisions coming into operation should not be until after the Genoa Conference Resolutions had been fully implemented. The Secretary of State for War stated, in the Debate on the Second Reading, that all of these Resolutions except the ninth had been implemented. That, in our view, is the most important Resolution of all, and it required that an international conference of the central banks should be summoned, and that an international convention should be concluded. We are anxious to suspend the coming into operation of this Bill until such time as that international conference has been held. There is no urgency whatever about this Bill, and that makes it all the more extraordinary that the Government should have kept this Committee up until a quarter to one o'clock. The present situation could perfectly well continue for a considerable time longer without any serious damage arising from any quarter. The appointed day which is to determine when this Bill shall come into operation should be put after, and not before, the summoning of this international convention. Unless the Government can give some satisfactory assurance that the appointed day will be fixed as late as I have indicated, my hon. Friends will divide against this Clause.

Miss WILKINSON: Surely, on a matter of this importance we are going to have a
reply from the Government. Obviously, the logic of carrying out the Genoa resolutions should be that a conference should be held, and it does seem to me that there is something extraordinarily suspicious about the haste with which the Government are rushing through this Bill. They are carrying it through almost as if they were engaged in a conspiracy. They have refused the most reasonable proposals put forward, and this extraordinarily reasonable proposal that has been put down in the names of my hon. Friend the Member for Peckham (Mr. Dalton) and the hon. Member for West Leicester (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence). Now we are being faced with a position that, in spite of the fact that it is well known that if the proposals for the rehabilitation of the currencies of the world are to have the desired effect in relieving unemployment and reviving trade and bringing prosperity to this country—which I regard as utterly impossible under this capitalist system—the Government should agree to the idea of this Amendment and appoint a day not earlier than three months after the holding of this conference.
We are highly suspicious that we are being led into some kind of conspiracy between Wall Street and Lombard Street and being led into holding up the civilised—and, for that matter, the uncivilised—races of the world under one banking concern. We feel that we are justified in making the most vigorous protest of which we are capable when the people of this country are being led into a trap. They are, in fact, being led into a trap. By the rushing through of this Bill, by the refusal of the Government that the appointed day should come not earlier than three months after the holding of an international conference of the central banks, by the attitude of the Government to this Amendment and Clause, and to all the Clauses that have preceded it, the people are being shown that we are justified in saying that this is nothing less than a conspiracy, and in the Division that will certainly follow I shall vote against the Clause.

Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 155; Noes, 58.

Division No. 138.]
AYES.
[12.40 a.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Hacking, Douglas H.
Reid, D. D. (County Down)


Albery, Irving James
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Hammersley, S. S.
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Harland, A.
Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.


Balniel, Lord
Harrison, G. J. C.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Hartington, Marquess of
Salmon, Major I.


Barnett, Major Sir Richard
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Haslam, Henry C.
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Betterton, Henry B.
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Sandeman, N. Stewart


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Sanders, Sir Robert A.


Brass, Captain W.
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Sandon, Lord


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Hills, Major John Waller
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Hilton, Cecil
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)
Shepperson, E. W.


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Hopkins, J. W. W.
Skelton, A. N.


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine,'C.)


Bullock, Captain M.
Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Burman, J. B.
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Cayzer,Maj.Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)
Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)
Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G.F.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Kindersley, Major Guy M.
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Christie, J. A.
King, Commodore Henry Douglas
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Wastm'eland)


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Knox, Sir Alfred
Steel, Major Samuel Strang


Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Lamb, J. Q.
Storry-Deans, R.


Cooper, A. Duff
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Cope, Major William
Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Couper, J. B.
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
MacIntyre, I.
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)
McLean, Major A.
Tomlinson, R. P.


Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Macmillan, Captain H.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Curzon, Captain Viscount
MacRobert, Alexander M.
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Dalkeith, Earl of
Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)


Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
Margesson, Captain D.
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Mason, Colonel Glyn K.
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Dean, Arthur Wellesley
Meller, R. J.
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Drewe, C
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Wells, S. R.


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dairymple-


Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Elliot, Major Walter E.
Nelson, Sir Frank
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Fanshawe, Captain G. D.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Foxcroft, Captain C. T.
Oakley, T.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Fraser, Captain Ian
O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)
Womersley, W. J.


Fremantle, Lt.-Col. Francis E.
Penny, Frederick George
Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)


Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony
Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Wood, E (Chest'r, Stalyb'ge & Hyde)


Ganzoni, Sir John
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frame)
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Pilcher, G.
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Gower, Sir Robert
Preston, William



Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Price, Major C. W. M.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Grant, Sir J. A.
Raine, Sir Walter
Captain Bowyer and Sir Victor


Greene, W. P. Crawford
Ramsden, E.
Warrender.




NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Hollins, A.
Sitch, Charles H.


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Slesser, Sir Henry H.


Batey, Joseph
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Stephen, Campbell


Buchanan, G.
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Sullivan, Joseph


Charleton, H. C.
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Slivertown)
Sutton, J. E.


Dalton, Hugh
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Thurtle, Ernest


Day, Harry
Kelly, W. T.
Tinker, John Joseph


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Kirkwood, D.
Varley, Frank B.


Gibbins, Joseph
Lawson, John James
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Gillett, George M.
Lindley, F. W.
Watts-Morgan. Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Lunn, William
Wellock, Wilfred


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Mackinder, W.
Welsh, J. C.


Grundy, T. W.
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Whiteley, W.


Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Maxton James
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Hayday, Arthur
Murnin, H.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Hayes, John Henry
Oliver, George Harold
Windsor, Walter


Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)
Parkinson, John Alien (Wigan)



Hirst, G. H.
Saklatvala, Shapurji
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—




Mr. T. Henderson and Mr. Paling.

Schedule agreed to.

Bill reported; as amended, to be con-
sidered To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 136.]

BANKERS (NORTHERN IRELAND) BILL.

Considered in Committee.

[Mr. JAMES HOPE in the Chair.]

CLAUSE I.—(Limit on fiduciary note issues in Northern Ireland.)

Mr. SAMUEL: I beg to move, in page 2, line 29, at the end, to insert the words:
Provided that where by virtue of this sub-section a bank is required to reduce its fiduciary note issue the reduction may be effected at any time with the period of six months next after the commencement of this Act by such stages as the Treasury may approve.
When the Bill came up for Second Reading the hon. Member for Down (Mr. Reid) raised this matter, and the Amendment meets the point that my hon. Friend then raised. It will be necessary to empower the Treasury to give breathing space for the first six months after the commencement of the Act. This Amendment will meet the wishes of my hon. Friend.

Mr. J. JONES: I cannot claim, like some of those who have preceded me in this discussion, that I am a financial expert. My knowledge of gold is due to the lack of it. But in so far as this particular proposition is concerned, I would like to know why it is that Northern Ireland is mixed up with the Bank of England. The Bank of England, of course, has been called the Bank of England for so long that people have almost begun to believe in it. It is not the Bank of England.

The CHAIRMAN: There is nothing about the Bank of England either in this Clause or in the Amendment.

Mr. JONES: I quite understand that you never know what they really do mean until you get the Chairman to explain. But so far as I am concerned and representing an English constituency, I would like to know exactly what this fiduciary

Division No. 139.]
AYES.
[1.7 a.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Brass, Captain W.
Cooper, A. Duff


Albery, Irving James
Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Cope, Major William


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Couper, J. B.


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Courtauld, Major J. S.


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)


Balniel, Lord
Bullock, Captain M.
Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Burman, J. B.
Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)


Barnett, Major Sir Richard
Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R.(Prtsmth.S.)
Crookshank, Cpt. H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro)


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Christie, J. A.
Curzon, Captain Viscount


Betterton, Henry B.
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Dalkeith, Earl of


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)

—I do not know whether it is running for the Derby or whether it is a new name for greyhound racing.

The CHAIRMAN: The purpose of this Amendment is to give the Irish banks a six months' run.

Mr. JONES: I thank you very much for that correction. I hope by the time they have had a six months' run they will have run their course. Then we shall have a chance of altering the situation. We have the Bank of England. Now we are going to give the Bank of Ireland—

The CHAIRMAN: I cannot help suspecting that the hon. Member is introducing a certain sense of humour into the situation, but he must address himself to the argument whether they are to have a six months' run or not.

Mr. JONES: So far as some of us are concerned, we cannot understand all this business. We do not believe in banks being run in the interests of private financiers against the interests of the great mass of the people, and this is all that this means.

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member knows that it is possible for me to direct him to resume his seat, and I must ask him, if he does not wish that unhappy incident to result, to address himself to the question as to whether banks are to have six months' run or whether they are to reduce their issue at once.

Mr. JONES: If I had my way, I would run them out of existence at once. You can call it what you like, but there is no Bank of England.

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member must keep to the Amendment.

Mr. JONES: Thank you very much.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 150; Noes, 58.

Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen
Shepperson, E. W.


Dean, Arthur Wellesley
Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Skelton, A. N.


Drewe, C.
MacIntyre, Ian
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Edmondson, Major A. J.
McLean, Major A.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)
Macmillan, Captain H.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Elliot, Major Walter E.
Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm
Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.


Fanshawe, Captain G. D.
MacRobert, Alexander M.
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Foxcroft, Captain C. T.
Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)


Fraser, Captain Ian
Margesson, Captain D.
Steel, Major Samuel Strang


Freemantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Mason, Colonel Glyn K.
Storry-Deans, R.


Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony
Meller, R. J.
Sugden, sir Wilfrid


Ganzoni, Sir John
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Gilmour, Lt. Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Gower, Sir Robert
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-


Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Nelson, Sir Frank
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Grant, Sir J. A.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Tomilnson, R. P.


Greene, W. P. Crawford
Oakley, T.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Hacking, Douglas H.
O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Penny, Frederick George
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)


Hammersley, S. S.
Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Warrender, Sir Victor


Harland, A.
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Harrison, G. J. C.
Pilcher, G.
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Hartington, Marquess of
Preston, William
Wells, S. R.


Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Price, Major C. W. M.



Haslam, Henry C.
Raine, Sir Walter
White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dairymple-


Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Ramsden, E.
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Reid, D. D. (County Down)
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Hills, Major John Waller
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Hilton, Cecil
Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.
Womersley, W. J.


Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)


Hopkins, J. W. W.
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell
Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'dge & Hyde)


Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Salmon, Major I.
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Kennedy, A. R. (Preston).
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Kindersley, Major Guy M.
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


King, Commodore Henry Douglas
Sandeman, N. Stewart



Knox, Sir Alfred
Sanders, Sir Robert A.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Lamb, J. Q.
Sandon, Lord
Captain Bowyer and Captain


Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.
Wallace.


Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley





NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon, W. (Fife, West)
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Saklatvala, Shapurji


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Hollins, A.
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Sitch, Charles H.


Batey, Joseph
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Slesser, Sir Henry H.


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Stephen, Campbell


Buchanan, G.
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Sullivan, J.


Charleton, H. C.
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Sutton, J. E.


Dalton, Hugh
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Thurtle, Ernest


Day, Harry
Kelly, W. T.
Tinker, John Joseph


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Kirkwood, D.
Varley, Frank B.


Gibbins, Joseph
Lawson, John James
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Gillett, George M.
Lindley, F. W.
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Lunn, William
Wellock, Wilfred


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Mackinder, W.
Weish, J. C.


Grundy, T. W.
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Whiteley, W.


Hall, F. (York., W.R., Normanton)
Maxton, James
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Hayday, Arthur
Murnin, H.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)
Oliver, George Harold
Windsor, Walter


Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Paling, W.



Hirst, G. H.
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—




Mr. Hayes and Mr. B. Smith.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSES 2 (Restriction on putting in circulation notes issued out of the United Kingdom), (3) (Issues of notes against coins), and (4) (Short title, construction and commencement) ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Division No. 140.]
AYES.
[1.17 a.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Brocklebank, C. E. R


Albery, Irving James
Barnett, Major Sir Richard
Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. J.


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Broun-Lindsay, Major H.


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Betterton, Henry B.
Brown, Ernest (Leith)


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Bullock, Captain M.


Balniel, Lord
Brass, Captain W.
Burman, J. B.

Bill reported; as amended, considered.

Motion made, and Question put, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."

The House divided: Ayes, 147; Noes, 58.

Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)
Hopkins, J. W. W.
Sandeman, N. Stewart


Christie, J. A.
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Sanders, Sir Robert A.


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Kennedy, A. R. (Preston).
Sandon, Lord


Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Kindersley, Major G. M.
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.


Cooper, A. Duff
King, Commodore Henry Douglas
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley


Cope, Major William
Knox, Sir Alfred
Shepperson, E. W.


Couper, J. B.
Lamb, J. Q.
Skelton, A. N.


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G.F.


Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)
MacIntyre, Ian
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Curzon, Captain Viscount
McLean, Major A.
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)


Dalkeith, Earl of
Macmillan, Captain H.
steel, Major Samuel Strang


Davidson, Major-General Sir John H.
Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm
Storry-Deans, R.


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
MacRobert, Alexander M.
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Drewe, C.
Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Margesson, Captain D
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)
Mason, Colonel Glyn K.
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-


Elliot, Major Walter E.
Meller, R. J.
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Fanshawe, Captain G. D.
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Tomlinson, R. P.


Foxcroft, Captain C. T.
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Fraser, Captain Ian
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Fremantle, Lt.-Col. Francis E.
Nelson, Sir Frank
Ward, Lt.-Col. A.L. (Kingston-on-Hull)


Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Ganzoni, Sir John
O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)
Warrender, Sir Victor


Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Penny, Frederick George
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Gower, Sir Robert
Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Wells, S. R.


Grant, Sir J. A.
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)
White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dairymple-


Greene, W. P. Crawford
Pilcher, G.
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Hacking, Douglas H.
Preston, William
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Price, Major C. W. M.
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Hammersley, S. S.
Raine, Sir Walter
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Ramsden, E.
Womersley, W. J.


Harland, A.
Reid, D. D. (County Down)
Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)


Harrison, G. J. C.
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)
Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'ge & Hyde)


Hartington, Marquess of
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)



Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Salman, Major I.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Hills, Major John Waller
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Captain Bowyer and Captain


Hilton, Cecil
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Wallace.


Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)






NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Hollins, A.
Sitch, Charles H.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Hudson, J. H. (Hudderefield)
Slesser, Sir Henry H.


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Jenkins, W, (Glamorgan, Neath)
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Batey, Joseph
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Stephen, Campbell


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Sullivan, J.


Buchanan, G.
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Sutton, J. E.


Dalton, Hugh
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Thurtle, Ernest


Day, Harry
Kelly, W. T.
Tinker, John Joseph


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Kirkwood, D.
Varley, Frank B.


Gibbins, Joseph
Lawson, John James
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Gillett, George M.
Lindley, F. W.
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Lunn, William
Wellock, Wilfred


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Mackinder, W.
Welsh, J. C.


Grundy, T. W.
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Whiteley, W.


Hall, F (York, W. R., Normanton)
Maxton, James
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Hayday, Arthur
Murnin, H.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)
Oliver, George Harold
Windsor, Walter


Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)



Hirst, G. H.
Saklatvala, Shapurji
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)
Mr. Hayes and Mr. Paling.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

REORGANISATION OF OFFICES (SCOTLAND) BILL.

Mr. BUCHANAN: May I ask a question from you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, before we proceed further?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. James Hope): Is it a point of Order?

Mr. BUCHANAN: Yes, it is a point of Order. On the Reorganisation of Offices (Scotland) Bill, I understood you to shout out "Monday." My point of Order is that we took it to be Monday, and I would like to know whether there has been any alteration of date.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: This is a Government Bill, I think, and I confess
that I do not now remember, with the number of Bills that have been passed, what was said, but whatever was said I repeated.

HON. MEMBERS: Monday.

Mr. BUCHANAN: My reason for raising this point of Order is that I understand my objection will not be valid if I do not raise it now. My distinct recollection is that you said "Monday."

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Whatever I said, was recorded by the Clerk. I cannot now remember what I said. I think the only course for the hon. Member is to consult the Clerk.

Mr. JOHNSTON rose—

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: It is impossible to continue this discussion. It might be raised at Eleven o'clock to-morrow—

HON. MEMBERS: To-day.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: It might be raised then, if there has been any doubt about it. The Bill was called, and I cannot remember now for what day, but it was recorded.

Mr. MAXTON: On a point of Order. This is a matter of considerable importance to a very large number of Members of this House.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I cannot allow further discussion on the matter.

It being after half-past Eleven, of the Clock upon. Thursday evening, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Twenty-nine minutes after One o'Clock.